Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relations: A Festschrift in Honor of Marilynn B. Brewer

Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relations Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relatio...

Author: Roderick M. Kramer | Geoffrey J. Leonardelli | Robert W. Livingston (Eds)

103 downloads 1794 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relations

Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relations A FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF

M A R I LY N N B . B R E W E R Roderick M. Kramer Geoffrey J. Leonardelli Robert W. Livingston EDITORS

Psychology Press New York London

Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group 711 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017

Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group 27 Church Road Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA

© 2011 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2011. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. Psychology Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business International Standard Book Number: 978-1-84872-935-3 (Hardback) For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www. copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the Psychology Press Web site at http://www.psypress.com ISBN 0-203-81679-X Master e-book ISBN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contributors Chapter 1

ix Rigor with Relevance: The Many Legacies of Marilynn B. Brewer

1

ROBERT W. LIVINGSTON, GEOFFREY J. LEONARDELLI, AND RODERICK M. KRAMER

PART I Chapter 2

Social Cognition Categorization-Based Versus Person-Based Explanations of Behaviors: Implications From the Dual-Process Model

9

MINORU KARASAWA

Chapter 3

Dynamic Aspects of Entitativity: From Group Perceptions to Social Interaction

27

DAVID L. HAMILTON, JACQUELINE M. CHEN, AND NATE WAY

Chapter 4

New Evolutionary Perspectives on Theory of Mind

53

LINNDA R. CAPORAEL AND GLENN D. REEDER

PART II Chapter 5

Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Social Identity Complexity: Theoretical Implications for the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations KATHARINA SCHMID AND MILES HEWSTONE

v

77

vi • Table of Contents

Chapter 6

Optimal Distinctiveness in Nested Categorization Contexts: Moving From Dueling Identities to a Dual Identity

103

GEOFFREY J. LEONARDELLI, CYNTHIA L. PICKETT, JOHN E. JOSEPH, AND YANINE D. HESS

Chapter 7

Agent-Based Modeling as a Tool for Studying Social Identity Processes: The Case of Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

127

CYNTHIA L. PICKETT, PAUL E. SMALDINO, JEFFREY W. SHERMAN, AND JEFFREY SCHANK

Chapter 8

Religion as Collective Identity

145

ANN C. RUMBLE

Chapter 9

Intergroup Relations in the 21st Century: In-Group Positivity and Out-Group Negativity Among Members of an Internet Hate Group 163 KAREN GONSALKORALE AND WILLIAM VON HIPPEL

Chapter 10

Developing a Theory of Gendered Prejudice: An Evolutionary and Social Dominance Perspective

189

MELISSA M. MCDONALD, CARLOS D. NAVARRETE, AND JIM SIDANIUS

Chapter 11

Intergroup Relations and Majority or Minority Group Influence

221

WILLIAM D. CRANO AND VANESSA HEMOVICH

Chapter 12

Intragroup Relationships and Intergroup Comparisons as Two Sources of Group-Based Collectivism

247

MASAKI YUKI

PART III Applications and Implications Chapter 13

How Leaders Transform Followers: Organizational Identity as a Mediator of Follower Attitudes in Three Service Organizations

269

SHERRY K. SCHNEIDER, WINETTE M. GEORGE, SEAN CARROLL, AND ERIC MIDDLETON

Chapter 14

Cooperation and the Commons: Laboratory and Field Investigations of a Persistent Dilemma RODERICK M. KRAMER

297

Table of Contents • vii

Chapter 15

Moral Disengagement and Morality Shifting in the Context of Collective Violence

319

EMANUELE CASTANO

Chapter 16

A Movable Feast: How Transformational Cross-Cultural Experiences Facilitate Creativity

339

WILLIAM W. MADDUX

Chapter 17

Trust in the Manager as a Supervisor or a Group Leader? Toward a Relational Versus Collective Distinction in Procedural Justice

361

YA-RU CHEN, GUOZHEN ZHAO, AND JEAN LEE

PART IV

Reflections and Conclusion

Chapter 18

In Retrospect…

383

MARILYNN B. BREWER

Author Index Subject Index

401 417

CONTRIBUTORS

Ya-Ru Chen Johnson School of Management Cornell University Ithaca, New York

Marilynn B. Brewer, Professor Emeritus Department of Psychology Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

William D. Crano Department of Psychology Claremont Graduate University Claremont, California

Linnda R. Caporael Department of Science & Technological Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York

Winette M. George School of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences University of West Florida Pensacola, Florida

Sean Carroll Monash University Melbourne, Australia Emanuele Castano Department of Psychology New School for Social Research New York, New York

Karen Gonsalkorale School of Psychology University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Jacqueline M. Chen Department of Psychology University of California Santa Barbara, California

David L. Hamilton Department of Psychology University of California Santa Barbara, California ix

x • Contributors

Vanessa Hemovich Department of Psychology Claremont Graduate University Claremont, California

Robert W. Livingston Kellogg School of Management Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois

Yanine D. Hess Department of Psychology University of California Davis, California

William W. Maddux INSEAD Organizational Behavior Area Fontainebleau, France

Miles Hewstone Department of Experimental Psychology University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom

Melissa M. McDonald Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan

John E. Joseph Fuqua School of Business Duke University Durham, North Carolina Minoru Karasawa Department of Psychology Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University Nagoya, Japan Roderick M. Kramer Graduate School of Business Stanford University Stanford, California Jean Lee China-Europe International Business School Shanghai, China Geoffrey J. Leonardelli Rotman School of Management University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Eric Middleton School of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences University of West Florida Pensacola, Florida Carlos D. Navarrete Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Cynthia L. Pickett Department of Psychology University of California Davis, California Glenn D. Reeder Department of Psychology Illinois State University Normal, Illinois Ann C. Rumble Ohio University-Chillicothe Chillicothe, Ohio

Contributors • xi

Jeffrey Schank Department of Psychology University of California Davis, California Katharina Schmid Department of Experimental Psychology University of Oxford Oxford, United Kingdom Sherry K. Schneider School of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences University of West Florida Pensacola, Florida Jeffrey W. Sherman Department of Psychology University of California Davis, California Jim Sidanius Department of Psychology Department of African and African American Studies Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts Paul E. Smaldino Department of Psychology University of California Davis, California

Joel A. Thurston University of California Santa Barbara, California William von Hippel School of Psychology University of Queensland St Lucia, Queensland, Australia Nate Way Department of Psychology University of California Santa Barbara, California Masaki Yuki Department of Behavioral Science Hokkaido University Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan Guozhen Zhao Department of Management and Global Business Rutgers Business School Rutgers University Newark–New Brunswick, New Jersey

1 RIGOR WITH RELEVANCE The Many Legacies of Marilynn B. Brewer Robert W. Livingston, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, and Roderick M. Kramer

This Festschrift honors Marilynn Brewer’s distinguished career in social psychology. Since receiving her PhD in 1968, her career has spanned 43 years as of the writing of this chapter, left an indelible impact on the field of social psychology, and earned the conferral of almost every major award that a social psychologist can receive. Putting that career in its proper context is a daunting task because of the depth and breadth of her numerous and diverse contributions. The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed an explosion of social psychological research on several important theoretical fronts, including prejudice and intergroup relations, social identity theory, sociobiology, anthropological approaches to human psychology, and the psychology of the social self. There were also concerted efforts to develop more applied social psychological theory and research, including addressing problems of prejudice, discrimination, cooperation and conflict, and social dilemmas. Amazingly—or perhaps of no surprise at all—Marilynn Brewer’s work reflects major theoretical and empirical advances in each of these frontiers. Indeed, these contributions are showcased in the chapters contained in this Festschrift. To properly contextualize the thematic direction of this Festschrift’s chapters, it is necessary to know something about the scientist whom this Festschrift honors. As a student of the legendary Donald T. Campbell, 1

2 • Robert W. Livingston, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, and Roderick M. Kramer

Marilynn Brewer cared about methodology. She recognized the benefits of multiple methods to converge on an idea, and her empirical work employed a variety of methodologies, from ethnography and field research to survey research and basic experimental laboratory research. Marilynn has been truly ambidextrous when it comes to data. Moreover, she has written widely on the proper understanding and creative use of research methodologies for testing hypotheses in the social sciences. However, just as important for her was the coupling of methodological rigor with relevance (Brewer, 1985)—relevance through deep theory on outcomes and behaviors that offer great significance to the sciences as a whole. Her writings offered a powerful and principled perspective, where she forcefully presented her empirical tests with convincing and meaningful rationale. Moreover, her theoretical perspectives offer substantial contributions to social psychological phenomena— including intergroup relations, social dilemmas, self and social identity, stereotyping, methodology, and attribution theory—a wide range to be sure. However, her contributions reached beyond that—going wider and farther—by offering a redefinition of and redirection within social psychology itself (Brewer, 1997, 2004). Instead of treating social psychology as a colony of other domains—for example, cognitive psychology, learning theory, or psychophysiology—she argued for a more imperialist view, one in which social interdependence is the basis for shaping human cognition, emotion, and motivation. Her perspective, shared often in her collaborations with Linnda Caporael, builds from core assumptions that the social context exerts a downward force on human psychology. The duality of rigor and relevance epitomizes the duality of Marilynn’s expertise. In an honor bestowed only upon the top experts in the field of social psychology, who are usually asked to write just one, Marilynn coauthored two chapters in the 1998 Handbook of Social Psychology: one on experimental methods in social psychology (Aronson, Wilson, & Brewer, 1998), and another on intergroup relations (Brewer & Brown, 1998). Her career communicates not only her commitment to rigor and relevance, but also her commitment to people. Marilynn touched and changed the lives of many graduate students, postdoctoral students, and professional colleagues from America to Australia, Italy to Israel, and Chile to China. As befitting the individual who inspired them, the chapters in this book pay homage to her enduring influence. The contributions range from beautifully crafted and carefully controlled experimental studies to field research and archival case studies. Given the breadth of Marilynn’s theoretical interests, her equally wide-ranging empiricism, and her enthusiasm for multimethod social psychology,

Rigor with Relevance • 3

the reader will encounter considerable diversity. The content of the chapters is also eclectic and encompasses a diverse range of topics from religion to gender to social dilemmas. Nevertheless, they share a common intellectual legacy, as Marilynn’s contributions to social psychology were also broad reaching. The extraordinary range of Marilynn’s scholarly career made our role as editors of this Festschrift both exceptionally easy and extraordinarily difficult. It was made easier because Marilynn worked with so many eager and willing students and colleagues over the years. Thus, we encountered no shortage of stellar scholars on whom to draw for contributions. It was made difficult because compiling and organizing such a large contribution into one book was quite daunting. Moreover, we knew from the outset that accommodating everyone who desired to participate in this Festschrift would be impractical—the line was simply too long! We also recognized that it would be impossible to do justice in one edited book when it came to acknowledging all of the fundamental areas and distinct ways in which Marilynn had left her mark on the field. Thus, we knew that there would be sins of omission. Happily, Marilynn willingly and enthusiastically jumped in and provided her usual perfect assist. She was generous in helping us to shape the scale and scope of our endeavors, identifying some of the major areas she hoped we would cover and offering useful thoughts on how her contributions might best be framed. There was, quite obviously, a great deal of ground to cover; Marilynn’s collaborative work is spread over several generations of students. Indeed, in a very real sense, our collaboration as coeditors reflects the impressive longevity of Marilynn’s career and the diversity of interests it encompassed.

FACTOR ANALYZING MARILYNN’S ACADEMIC LEGACY: OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PRESENT BOOK How does one summarize and organize the multifaceted contribution of a creative and prolific genius (e.g., Shakespeare, Brewer)? One challenge of our tribute was encapsulating Marilynn’s far-reaching contributions, across time, topic, application, and method, into one succinct book. We found it a formidable challenge to attempt a comprehensive volume touching on all the areas where Marilynn made such important and fundamental contributions to her chosen discipline. Nonetheless, we have tried to bring together a group of outstanding social psychologists—some young(er) and some old(er)—but all distinguished in their own right.


The present book is organized into three sections, in accord with Marilynn’s own wishes. The first includes theoretical contributions to social cognition. The second focuses on contributions to social identity and intergroup relations. The third is more eclectic in subject matter, encompassing some applications of social psychological theory and research in the substantive areas in which Marilynn worked or in which her students extended the range of her ideas. As coeditors, we were also pleased that we were able to represent a variety of diverse methodologies in this collection, ranging from traditional laboratory experiments to field studies, archival studies, and even agent simulations. Fortunately, we were able to persuade Marilynn that this Festschrift would be incomplete without an autobiographical perspective on her life in social psychology. Her reflective essay provides a wonderful counterpoint to the other contributions in this book and functions as the perfect bookend for our project. In her essay, she describes some of the personal influences and scientific imperatives that drove her interests and the approaches she took in her empirical work. Her students and collaborators will treasure it for its revelations and insights into how a scientist at the top of her game thinks and works. We hope the readers of this book will find Marilynn’s career as inspiring as we did.

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS FROM THE EDITORS Having provided an overview of the contents of this book, we wish to proceed by saying something about perhaps what is between the lines. As an advisor, Marilynn exhorted her students to pursue scientific work with an eye toward both rigor and relevance. Her own example set the high standard for both. As former Brewer advisees, we thought that it would be entirely appropriate (and amusing) for us to disclose neverbefore-revealed anecdotal evidence of Marilynn’s “rigor” and how it has shaped our perspective of relevance. Robert’s route to Marilynn was one of the most circuitous imaginable. The mere fact that he ended up being a student of Marilynn Brewer is a testament to the far-reaching relevance of her work. Being a Spanish major who minored in history, economics, and Latin American studies, he was happily ensconced in a PhD program in romance literature and linguistics at UCLA when he first became infected with Brewer fever. While studying colonialism and oppression in nineteenth-century Latin American literature, he developed an interest in what he would later discover was the topic of intergroup relations. He was so fascinated by the topic, and Marilynn’s work, that he decided to leave his program, despite being ABD, to pursue social psychology full time. As

Rigor with Relevance • 5

an advisor, Marilynn was the quintessential “mother hen,” effortlessly combining warmth, nurturance, and encouragement with discipline, constructive criticism, and tireless tutelage. He has been most inspired by her unshakeable integrity and unpretentious self-assurance, her meticulous and careful approach as a methodologist (i.e., rigor), and her unparalleled ability to think creatively and critically about important questions in the field and our world (i.e., relevance). Marilynn Brewer is a true intellectual—someone who asks big questions and thinks deeply about the answers. Self and identity were the reasons Geoff attended the Ohio State University in 1996, and the prospect of collaborating with Marilynn was a glorious opportunity. Having read her 1991 paper on optimal distinctiveness theory 2 years earlier, he was excited to work on what he considered to be a new frontier in identity research. However, as he collaborated with her, he realized his interests were changing in ways he had not intended. He began to care more about social identity rather than identity itself, to care more about intergroup contact, conflict reduction, and the conditions that facilitate cooperation. Upon reflection, it is easy to point to Marilynn as the source of this change—her interests were rooted in deeply important topics, and her arguments were persuasive and powerful. He has recalled conversations with Cindy Pickett, another former student and collaborator of Marilynn (and an ongoing collaborator of his), and both agreed that, as Marilynn started to twirl her hair, they could sense the thoughts preparing to march out of her mouth: crisp, clear, and ever advancing the goals of the project. She may be Australia’s national treasure, but Geoff considers her to be a personal treasure as well, as he has cherished the opportunity to be her student and collaborator. Rod met Marilynn in 1980, when he was a beginning graduate student in social psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He thought at the time that he was pursuing a doctorate in social psychology in order to receive the training he needed to do the applied work he hoped to do at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). He had interrupted his professional work at the NCI to pursue what he thought would be doctoral studies in the psychosocial aspects of cancer. Armed with a PhD, he could then return to that work. In short, a game plan was in place—until he met Marilynn and she became his advisor. She derailed his best-laid plans by making the process of doing basic research so exciting and fulfilling that he never left academia. Everyone who contributed to this book has a similar story of Marilynn’s impact. The people we approached about participating in this effort to honor Marilynn jumped in without hesitation. Despite


their busy careers and lives, no one wanted to be left out. And there was an unusually joyous spirit among all of the contributors—each seemed determined to write something original and special for this tribute. Each was asked not only to describe some of the work they have done that was inspired by Marilynn but also to indicate, in more personal terms, Marilynn’s impact as a mentor, colleague, and friend. Finally, we would like to conclude by noting that we do not believe that this book in any fashion does full justice to a comprehensive assessment of Marilynn’s many contributions. The breadth of her contributions is so substantial that we were forced to be selective in what we could capture in one book. Furthermore, we suspect that this pipeline is far from dry (even as we were putting the final touches on this book, one of us received a manuscript to review on which Marilynn was a coauthor!). We hope this Festschrift adds to the large and still growing body of work that reflects Marilynn’s extraordinary reach and impact. Although we offer this tribute as a statement of work to date, we would not be surprised if further contributions are forthcoming. Stay tuned!

REFERENCES Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 99–142). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Brewer, M. B. (1985). Experimental research and social policy: Must it be rigor versus relevance? Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 159–176. Brewer, M. B. (1997).On the social origins of human nature. In G. McGarty & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind and society (pp. 54–62). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Brewer, M. B. (2004). Taking the social origins of human nature seriously: Toward a more imperialist social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 107–113. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

I Social Cognition

2

CATEGORIZATIONBASED VERSUS PERSONBASED EXPLANATIONS OF BEHAVIORS Implications From the Dual-Process Model Minoru Karasawa

It is practically impossible to nominate Marilynn Brewer’s one representative work because her research has played significant roles in such diverse areas. Nevertheless, in this chapter, I would dare to highlight her dual-process model (DPM, in my own acronym) of impression formation. The original formulation of this model (Brewer, 1988) was invited as the target article in the inaugural volume of the influential series Advances in Social Cognition. Since then the model has been well accepted as one of the major frameworks for the study of person perception. The DPM was among the forerunners on the surge of dualprocess theories in various domains of social cognition, including the models of automatic versus controlled, heuristic versus systematic, and spontaneous versus intentional processing (see Chaiken & Trope, 1999, for a comprehensive view). The model has played an integral part of the zeitgeist in this literature over the past two decades or so. As the name of this model clearly indicates, Brewer (1988) emphasized in DPM that a perceiver may go through two distinct modes of information processing when forming an integrated mental representation of a person. The first mode was called “person-based” processing, which was assumed to concern unique characteristics of the target individual (e.g., “He is a brave man”). The second mode, “category-based” processing,

9

10 • Minoru Karasawa

was assumed to be based on preexisting knowledge or expectations about social categories to which the target belongs (“a firefighter”). The consequence of the latter mode may activate a prototypical (and often pictorial) image that matches the person, such as imagining a well-built, bearded man. This process was called “typing” in DPM. Alternatively, a contrasting effect called “individuation” may take place, such that the person is interpreted as an exceptional case for the activated category (e.g., “a brainy type reading lots of books”). A notable contribution of DPM is that the model illustrated a variety of ways in which categorical expectations are reflected on the impression of an individual person. Inspired by this emphasis, I will attempt in this chapter to offer an additional vantage point on the issue. Specifically, I argue that categorical expectations play a significant role not only in impression formation but also in explanations of observed behavior. More often than not, people refer to a category or group membership of the actor in their attempt to figure out the cause of or the reason for an observed behavior. For instance, an Asian woman’s high scores in math exams may be more easily accounted for by her ethnicity rather than by her unique individual dispositions such as her exceptional level of effort or interest in the subject. Alternatively, an outstanding performance by a member of a disadvantaged group may call for praise of his or her talent exactly because the category membership augments dispositional attributions (cf. Jones & McGillis, 1976). In the following section, I will discuss empirical evidence concerning various forms of category-based causal explanations. I will then argue that people not only generate categorical accounts for individuals’ behavior but also construct explanations for acts by a group as a whole. The crucial role that inferences of causality and agency play in animating perception of groups will be demonstrated.

CATEGORYBASED CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION Social psychological studies of causal explanations have traditionally been based on the distinction between “internal” and “external” attributions (e.g., Jones et al., 1972). In particular, when ordinary people observe an act by an individual, they tend to center their causal explanations on particular attributes or dispositions of the actor (i.e., internal attribution) as opposed to situational causes (Gilbert, 1998). Attributions based on individual characteristics, however, are not the only form of causal understanding of the observed behavior. As I mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and as the DPM of impression formation

Categorization-Based Versus Person-Based Explanations of Behaviors • 11

may well suggest, causal inferences about behavior are at times constructed on the basis of a category or a group that the actor belongs to. Earlier researchers certainly noted the potential influence of categorical information on causal attribution. Specifically, Jones and McGillis (1976) proposed that a category-based expectancy, as compared with a target-based expectancy, can either mitigate or augment correspondence inference. For instance, the statement, “I really love a Honda,” will be more likely attributed to the speaker’s true attitude (i.e., an internal attribution) when it is discovered that the person works for Toyota rather than Honda. The mismatch between the expectancy for a Toyota employee and the behavior is assumed to lead to a “noncommon effect.” The influence of categorical expectancies can also take a special form in the in-group versus out-group context. According to the study of “ultimate attribution error” (Hewstone, 1990; Pettigrew, 1979), desirable behaviors by in-group members tend to be attributed to the actor’s dispositions, whereas equally desirable behavior displayed by an out-group member is attributed to situations, or unstable causes such as “exceptional effort.” These effects are assumed to stem from in-group favoring and out-group derogating expectancies. However, these models were primarily concerned with how category-based expectancies moderate attributions to the actor’s internal factors as opposed to external causes. A different theoretical framework was needed to examine how categorical attributions per se are constructed. The Accessibility and Fit of Categorization From the perspective of Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), Oakes, Turner, and Haslam (1991) maintained that attribution to the actor’s category membership is a joint function of the accessibility of the category membership and the fit between the observed behavior and categorical expectations. In one of their experiments, these researchers demonstrated that when an individual group member was in a “solo status” with regard to gender (i.e., the only male in a group along with five females, or vice versa), his or her deviant opinion against all other members was particularly likely to be subject to a categorical explanation (i.e., “Because men (women) typically hold this kind of view”). In other words, the covariation between the salient gender category and the distinctly deviant behavior facilitated the category-based attribution. Our own research (Karasawa & Sano, 1996, Experiment 1) extended this idea to test whether stereotypic expectations about the target category could elicit attribution to the category under the solo


status context. Japanese college students were presented with two vignettes that described on-campus groups making decisions about role assignments. Following the experimental paradigm developed by Oakes et al. (1991), each case depicted six members with varying ratios between male and female members (1:5, 3:3, or 5:1). Each scenario contained two critical assignments that were either gender stereotyped or counterstereotypical. For instance, a “drama club” was described to be in need of deciding who should take the role of the director (which had been identified in a pilot study as a typically masculine role) and who should be the costume designer (i.e., a typically feminine role). The resultant role assignment depicted in the vignette was either stereotypical (i.e., a male director and a female costume designer) or counterstereotypical (vice versa). The second scenario described a sport club deciding who should be the chairperson (i.e., masculine) and who should serve tea (i.e., feminine) at an important intercollegiate meeting. Hence, the experimental design was a 2 (stereotypicality of the role assignment) × 3 (gender ratio: male majority vs. equal vs. female majority) × 2 (target individual’s gender) mixed model, with the first two variables as between participants and the last as a within participants variable. After reading each scenario, participants were asked to make causal judgments about each target’s role assignment. The most relevant to the present discussion was the endorsement for a categorical cause (i.e., “because he or she was a man or woman”). Consistent with our prediction, we found that a stereotypic role assignment was attributed to the target’s gender, especially when the target was in the salient solo status (Figure 2.1a). As for the scenario of a drama club, the stereotypicality × gender ratio × target’s gender interaction was statistically significant (p < .05). When the role assignment was gender stereotypical (i.e., a male director and a female costume designer), the causal explanation referring to gender was most likely in the solo status condition. However, the likelihood of such categorical attribution was constantly low when the assignments were counterstereotypic. Likewise, Figure 2.1b shows that the categorical attribution score was particularly high for the stereotypic male chairperson in the solo male condition, whereas a symmetric pattern was found for the female target serving tea. Furthermore, these patterns were replicated in another study that used videotaped discussions instead of written scenarios as the experimental stimuli (Karasawa & Sano, 1996, Experiment 2). Together, these results demonstrate that category-based attributions are determined by the salience of category identity and its fit with stereotypical role expectations.

Categorization-Based Versus Person-Based Explanations of Behaviors • 13 Typical assignment

Atypical assignment 5

4 3 Male

2

Female

Because of gender

Because of gender

5

4 3 2 1

1 Male minority

Even

Male minority

Female minority

Even

Female minority

Male–female numerical ratio (a) Drama club scenario Typical assignment

Atypical assignment 5

4 3 Male

2

Female

1

Because of gender

Because of gender

5

4 3 2 1

Male minority

Even

Female minority

Male minority

Even

Female minority

Male–female numerical ratio (b) Sport club scenario

Figure 2.1 Mean categorical attributions for (a) drama club scenario and (b) sport club scenario. (From Karasawa, M., & Sano, S. (1996, Experiment 1). Transactions of the Institute for Cultural Studies, Aichi Gakuin University, 11, 1–9. With permission.)

Psychological Essentialism Recent studies show that category-based explanations are potentially related to beliefs in “essence” that lie at the core of the target categories. For example, Prentice and Miller (2006) invited either mixed-gender or same-gender unacquainted pairs to their experiment. On the basis of a dot-estimation task, they classified the participants into two fictitious categories named “overestimators” and “underestimators.” They


found that participants generalized the observed perceptual tendencies to other people of the same gender, particularly when the gender and the perceptual tendencies were both different within the pair (i.e., a male overestimator and a female underestimator, or vice versa). Interestingly, even though participants in the other conditions generally “regressed” toward an assumed norm in the second trial of dot estimation (i.e., overestimators reduced and underestimators increased their estimates), individuals in those double-difference pairs maintained their standards of estimation. Because the perceptual tendency and gender visibly covaried in these pairs, the participants were presumably able to attribute that association to some essential feature of the gender category. Consequently, they might have felt justified to generalize the observation to the rest of the members of each category and to adhere to their own judgmental standards. In one of our own studies (Tsukamoto & Karasawa, 2010), we examined whether the effects found by Prentice and Miller (2006) were truly related to psychological essentialism. Our results conceptually replicated the predecessors’ finding with “Japanese students” versus “international students” classification employed as the target of essentialism. More importantly, applying an essentialism scale developed by Haslam, Rothschild, and Ernst (2000), we found that only in the double-difference condition, but not in the others, the amount of generalization was significantly correlated with the strength of essentialist beliefs, particularly on the “exclusiveness” of being Japanese (i.e., “A Japanese person cannot be a different nationality at the same time”). Consequence of Attributing to Group Discrimination Category-based attribution may also invite a peculiar effect involving group discrimination. Members of disadvantaged groups are often placed in a dilemma concerning how to interpret an unwanted result. For instance, a woman who has just received a rejection letter after applying for job may wonder whether this can be a case of gender discrimination. On the other hand, she would also need to know, for the purpose of adjustments, whether or not the true reason of the failure had anything to do with her personal attributes such as her lack of abilities or having taken the wrong strategy. This “attributional ambiguity” can be a major source of psychological distress among members of a stigmatized group, including lowered self-esteem, pessimism, and reactions from others as hypersensitive (Major & Crocker, 1993). A theoretically important question arises as to whether attribution to discrimination should be viewed as an internal or external cause. Also, it is an empirical question regarding how it is actually viewed by


ordinary people. On the one hand, attribution to discrimination can be seen as an “external” causality, in that this type of explanation can be made independent of, or even as opposed to, the actor’s personal attributes. Indeed, claiming discrimination for a negative outcome, rather than blaming the self, may alleviate the potential damage to self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989). On the other hand, attribution to discrimination is likely to heighten the awareness on the part of the rejected person concerning the fact that he or she belongs to a stigmatized group. Arguably, such category-based self-concept may imply an “internal” causality. Indeed, a study by Schmitt and Branscombe (2002) demonstrated that the locus of causality with regard to discrimination can be perceived as both internal and external at the same time. As a consequence, attribution to discrimination may not necessarily be a remedy to damaged self-esteem but may instead hurt self-esteem even more than other kinds of attributions (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002, Study 2). The possibility that discrimination attribution threatens self-esteem can account for why members of a stigmatized group at times attempt to avoid this type of causal explanation. For instance, Asai (2006) presented Japanese female undergraduates with a scenario that described a woman failing in her job interview. Participants were then asked to imagine that either herself or another female applicant was the protagonist. Also, modeling the experimental paradigm that was originally contrived by Ruggiero and Taylor (1997), the scenario informed the participants that some members of the interview panel were potentially sexists. The informed proportion of sexists among the all-men panel was allegedly 100%, 60%, or 0% depending on the experimental condition, and thus, the probability of discrimination was manipulated. Participants were then asked to rate how likely discrimination, as well as the protagonist’s personal attributes (i.e., “lack of talent,” “wrong strategy”), was the cause of the outcome. As illustrated in Figure 2.2a, when the participants projected themselves on the protagonist, they showed a high level of discrimination attribution only in the condition with a 100% probability of discrimination. The attribution to discrimination dropped even when the probability was still moderately high (60%). These results were consistent with the general pattern found by Ruggiero and Taylor (1997). However, when it came to an in-group other, participants were more willing to acknowledge discrimination in the 60% condition, thus apparently lowering the definitive standard of discrimination. In other words, the female participants minimized the possibility of discrimination, particularly when the potential discrimination pertained to their own fate.

16 • Minoru Karasawa Attribution to discrimination

Attribution to personal factors

7

7 Target

6

Self Other

5 4 3

Attribution score

Attribution score

6

2

5 4 3 2

1

1 High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Likelihood of discrimination (a) Failure scenario Attribution to personal factors

Attribution to favoritism 7

7 Target

6

Self Other

5 4 3

Attribution score

Attribution score

6

2

5 4 3 2

1

1 High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Likelihood of favoritism (b) Success scenario

Figure 2.2 Mean scores of attribution to (a) discrimination in the failure scenario and (b) favoritism in the success scenario. (Reproduced from Asai, N. (2006, Study 2). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 77, 317–324 (in Japanese with an English abstract). Copyright 2006 by the Japanese Psychological Association. With permission.)

In contrast to discrimination attribution, self-blame (i.e., attribution to personal causes) did not show any significant differences between the conditions. It should be noted that Asai’s study (2006) also included experimental conditions with a desirable outcome. Participants in these conditions


were asked to imagine that the protagonist, again either the self or an in-group other, was successfully admitted for the applied job. This time, the base-rate probability of favoritism was manipulated with the proportion of feminists in the panel systematically varied. As can be seen in Figure 2.2b, participants were now willing to attribute their own success to favoritism as long as the bias in the panel was moderately likely. This tendency was found whether the self or an in-group other was imagined in the situation. To summarize, category-based causal explanation appears to operate not only on the construal of an event that other people incurred but also on that of an event inflicted on the self. In particular, attributing an unwanted outcome to discrimination against one’s own group can be a double-edged sword, in that it may help the actor escape selfblame in some cases but may damage self-evaluations. Also, claiming discrimination may elicit reactive responses from the dominant group because of perceived “hypersensitivity,” resulting in a new stigma as “claimers” attached to the in-group (e.g., Kaiser & Miller, 2001). Indeed, a recent study by Asai and Karasawa (2009) revealed that members of a stigmatized group perceived the social cost associated with claiming discrimination to a greater extent when they were seen by a stranger rather than by a friend. As I have repeated thus far, DPM was postulated for the understanding of impression formation processes. Yet, its emphasis on the importance of category-based information processes resonates with the fact that category-based explanations about the self can be internalized to as great an extent as the study of discrimination attribution has demonstrated.

BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATIONS ABOUT COLLECTIVE ACTS I have discussed thus far how categorical knowledge and expectations influence the interpretation of an individual’s behavior and characteristics. Viewed from a different perspective, one should also notice that we often look at groups of people with an expectation that they typically apply to individual actors. We may certainly view an individual through a collective lens and pay attention to his or her categorical membership, but on the other hand, they also look at a group of people in a “personified” way, regarding the group as a unitary or even mindful entity (e.g., “Nation X resented Nation Y’s malicious provocation”; “The youth of today are indifferent to politics”).


Impression Formation about a Person and a Group In their extensive review, Hamilton and Sherman (1996) presented ample evidence showing that perceivers process information about an individual’s behavior in quite different ways than when they observe behavior engaged in by a group of people. These authors, however, also pointed out that a group may be perceived as though it behaved like an individual person under certain circumstances. They emphasized that a key variable that facilitates such personified perception of a group is the perceived unity among the group members. Group members who are closely tied to each other or to the group identity are generally perceived to behave in a more coherent manner and are subject to person-like information processing compared to the perception of a loose collection of people. The lay intuition that a social group may act as a distinct social agent has been conceptualized by the term “entitativity,” which was originally coined by Campbell (1958). The study of entitativity is another field to which Marilynn made significant contributions (e.g., Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Brewer, Hong, & Li, 2004), and empirical findings regarding this concept are discussed in great detail by David Hamilton and colleagues in Chapter 3 of this book. Furthermore, when a group of people is perceived as if it were an entitative “thing” or “organism” (cf. Campbell, 1958), it is plausible that there also arises the perception of causal agency in that entity. Specifically, empirical evidence shows that a highly entitative group, compared to a low-entitativity group, is more likely to be held responsible and blamed for promoting its members toward or not preventing them from wrongdoing (Lickel, Schmader, & Hamilton, 2003). Furthermore, I would argue that once a group is perceived to be an agentic entity, some kinds of mental states (e.g., goals, motives, intentions, independence, and free will) can be assumed inside of the group, just as in the case of blameworthy individual actors (cf. Shaver, 1985). In the following section, I will first discuss how people construct the perception of intentionality. A model proposed by Malle (2004) will be employed as an analytical framework. I will then turn to applying the model to a study of the perception of a group’s intentionality. Finally, I will come back to discuss the possible relationship between group entitativity and perceived intentionality, as well as judgments of responsibility. “Theory of Mind” about Groups: Perception of Collective Intentionality In a series of studies, Malle (2004) and his colleagues demonstrated that ordinary people can make intuitive judgments highly confidently about what acts are intentional and what acts are not. In addition, they


found that the intentionality judgments are verbalized in a systematic way. One typical form of expressing intentionality perception is called “reason explanations.” This type of explanation ordinarily refers to the mental states assumed inside of the actor, including beliefs (e.g., “I said that because I thought my comments would help him”) and desires (e.g., “I said that because I wanted to help him”). Hence, it appears to be a commonly shared knowledge among lay people that such a mental state is a prerequisite for intentionality to be recognized. Not all perceptions of intentional behaviors, however, need to be based on explicit reasons. Some behavior can be explained in terms of more distal background factors, and yet may be regarded as intentional. Such distal factors summoned for intentionality judgments are termed “causal history of reason” (CHR). Typical examples of CHR include situational forces, actor’s dispositions, social categories and roles, and life history such as their upbringing. CHR may certainly result in beliefbased or desire-based intentions, but the actor does not consciously recognize the causal relationship under normal conditions. To take a concrete example, person may attack someone else because of his aggressive trait or because of psychological stress due to his social circumstances, but normally he would not make a deliberate decision such as “I will hurt him because I am an aggressive person” or “because I am under enormous stress.”* The model postulated by Malle (2004) primarily concerns how people construct the judgment of intentionality in an individual’s acts. However, the model can be extended to the judgments about groups as well. That is, people may apply a similar kind of “theory of mind” when they try to find meanings in an act by a group. Just as they assume that the source of an individual’s intention resides in his or her mental devices like “brain” or “heart,” they may also look for an executive function in a group as a core of collective intention. To the extent that perceivers can find a certain mind-like function in a group, they will be more likely to use reason explanations, rather than CHR explanations, in understanding a group’s conduct. To test this possibility, Teramae and Karasawa (2008) manipulated the existence of a well-functioning “brain” in a group and examined the type of resultant behavior explanations. Japanese undergraduate students read a scenario that described a police department reaching a wrong decision (i.e., arresting an innocent person as a crime suspect). * If the actor does make a decision based on such deliberation, then the case can be classified as a reason explanation, which regards the act as a result of the actor’s mental state (i.e., the awareness of the traits or stress).


In the “executive function present” condition, it was described in the scenario that the department established an investigation headquarters so that this executive unit could process relevant information and make important decisions. In the “executive function absent” condition, it was stated that there was no such executive unit. In addition to these “group actor” conditions, there were “individual actor” conditions in which an individual officer, a member of either the department that had an executive function or the one with no such function, made the same mistake (i.e., arresting a wrong person) on his own capacity. In other words, the same information concerning the characteristics of the group (with the presence or absence of the executive unit varied) was provided across the individual and the group actor conditions. After reading the scenario, participants were asked to provide open-ended explanations, whatever they could envision, for why the actor resulted in the wrong decision. They were allowed to write down three different explanations as maximum. On the basis of Malle’s coding system of behavior explanations (Malle, 2004), we developed a Japanese version of the coding scheme and applied this to our data. (The original agreement rate between two independent coders was 92% with k = .86.) Among the various explanation categories, the main interest for the present discussion is in the reason and CHR explanations. Typical examples of reason explanations mentioned that “they were (he was) sure that the guy was the suspect,” “found valid motives in the suspect,” and “wanted to resolve the case quickly.” On the other hand, CHR explanations typically referred to the lack of integrity as an organization, insufficient investigations, a low level of morale, and so forth. We compared the mean number of each type of explanation across the experimental conditions (see Figure 2.3). A 2 (actor) × 2 (executive functioning) × 2 (explanation type) mixed-model analysis of variance with the last factor as withinparticipant indicated a significant functioning × explanation type interaction (p < .001). As we predicted, reason explanations outnumbered CHR explanations when the police department was depicted as working under a well-functioning executive unit, whereas the opposite pattern was found in the no executive function condition. To our surprise, however, this was true to both actor conditions. Even when the actor was an individual police officer, participants found a higher level of mindfulness when the group was depicted as working under a well-functioning executive unit. This may be accounted for, at least in part, by a cultural basis of behavior explanations, in that people living in East Asian cultures are known to be inclined toward emphasizing group agency rather than individual agency in contrast to those


Number of explanations

2.5

Executive present

2.0

Executive absent

Target Group Individual

1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Reason

CHR Reason Type of explanations

CHR

Figure 2.3 Mean number of reason explanations and causal history of reason explanations. (Reproduced from Teramae, S., & Karasawa, M. (2008). Journal of Human Environmental Studies, 6, 35–41 (in Japanese with an English abstract). Copyright 2008 by the Society for Human Environmental Studies. With permission.)

living in the United States (e.g., Menon, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, 1999). Consequently, the high level of attention to the group agency observed among the Japanese participants may have been carried over to their judgments on the individual’s act. The notion that a group may have a mental state has long been rejected in social psychology as a nonscientific fallacy (Allport, 1924). Indeed, researchers would typically face difficulty in providing an operational definition of group mind. However, the findings by Teramae and Karasawa (2008) demonstrate that behavior explanations constructed by ordinary people can easily presuppose intentions associated with beliefs and desires even in a group, as long as the group is perceived to possess a mind-like function. Group Entitativity, Collective Intentionality, and Responsibility The results from the Teramae and Karasawa study (2008) are consistent with findings by O’Laughlin and Malle (2002). These researchers revealed that reason explanations were more prevalent in interpretations of behaviors that were observed in jointly acting group members (e.g., the department faculty at a particular university planning to introduce a new curriculum requirement), relative to what was observed in loosely connected aggregates (e.g., department chairpersons in the United States planning a new curriculum requirement). In contrast, CHR explanations were more prevalent for the latter than the former type of group. A rationale behind this study was that a mental state as a premise of intention should be more likely to be assumed for the


jointly acting group members. This would make it easier to coordinate the behavior of complex and inconsistent behavioral tendencies among group members. In contrast, CHR should provide a “parsimonious” explanation for the lay understanding of a group with potentially diverse tendencies. The concept of group entitativity should nicely characterize the jointly acting people in the O’Laughlin and Malle study (2002). In other words, a highly entitative group may be an easier target of assuming intentionality in its act compared to a low-entitativity group. Furthermore, drawing on the findings from Teramae and Karasawa (2008), a theory of mind about a group does not necessarily call for the entitativity of the whole group. Instead, the recognition of a coherent subgroup that serves as a mindful executive unit may suffice to elicit the perception of collective intentionality, as well as a subsequent judgment of collective responsibility. One of our own studies (Hioki & Karasawa, 2010, Study 2) addressed this issue. Participants in this study were presented with a scenario describing wrongdoing by a food company. In one experimental condition, the board of directors of this company was described as highly entitative, such that the board members communicated well among themselves concerning business matters and liked each other, often playing golf together and going out to a group travel on a regular basis. In the other condition, the entitativity was described as low such that their attraction and communication levels were both low and that the board members were often in conflict and confrontation on various matters. The scenario also described a case of wrongdoing by an employee of this company, such as knowingly mismanaging the sanitary conditions of a factory, which eventually caused a food-poisoning incident, or insider trading of a company’s stocks. After reading one of these cases, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they found intentionality and responsibility on the side of the executive board for allowing the malpractice to take place. As depicted in Figure 2.4, the mean ratings of perceived intentionality and responsibility showed identical patterns. As for the case of food poisoning, the highly entitative board of directors was perceived to have acted more intentionally relative to the low-entitativity board. The assignment of responsibility was also higher for the former group. However, the case of insider trading did not produce a significant effect of entitativity on either the intentionality or responsibility rating. It is not entirely clear why the effect was observed only in the food poisoning case, but we speculate that the entitativity of an executive subgroup

Categorization-Based Versus Person-Based Explanations of Behaviors • 23 Intentionality rating 4

Entitativity High Low

3.5

Responsibility rating 4 3.5

3

3

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

Entitativity High Low

1 Food poisoning

Insider trading

Food poisoning

Insider trading

Incident

Incident

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.4 Perceived group (a) intentionality and (b) responsibility. (Reproduced from Hioki, K., & Karasawa, M. (2010). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 81, 9–16 (in Japanese with an English abstract). Copyright 2010 by the Japanese Psychological Association. With permission.)

may be particularly influential when the incident is directly relevant to a particular type of business (e.g., manufacturing food products). Nevertheless, the analyses of causal paths revealed that the rating of intentionality did lead to the rating of responsibility in both the food poisoning and the insider trading scenarios (overall β = .40, p < .01). Furthermore, perceived responsibility significantly influenced the intent to purchase a product of this company (β = −.22, p < .05). Interestingly, the perceived responsibility fully mediated the influence of intentionality perceived in the executive board leading to the simulated consumer’s intent to purchase. Exactly the same meditational effect was found in another experiment using a different scenario (i.e., a sexual harassment case; Hioki & Karasawa, 2010, Study 1). Taken together, these results suggest that a highly entitative subgroup with an executive function (e.g., board of directors) is perceived to behave intentionally and is also held responsible for acts by members of a more comprehensive group (e.g., employees of a company). Furthermore, the perception of subgroup intentionality and responsibility may determine attitudes or behavioral intention toward the group (e.g., consumer intent to purchase). These results suggest that the study of entitativity and intentionality at a group level may have business implications with regard to issues such as corporate governance and social responsibility.


CONCLUSION The DPM, like other similar and related models (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), has elucidated that information processing about a single person is typically operated through a number of different modes. The model specifically focused on category-based versus person-based processing. Likewise, a group of people may be viewed in different ways depending on whether the perceiver views it as an aggregate of distinguishable individuals or as a singular social entity. This chapter demonstrated that the same is true to inferences about causality and agency in acts by individuals and groups. It is particularly an interesting social-psychological problem with respect to how people recognize agency in social collectives. In my attempt to suggest the possibility of different approaches to clarifying these issues, I frequently referred to research findings from our own lab, some of which are still at a preliminary stage and others having been published only in Japanese. These studies have been typically advanced by junior researchers as the chief investigators and are now brought into a broader arena for the first time. The inspiration from the DPM, along with other countless achievements by Marilynn Brewer, should continue to stimulate further exploration into these research endeavors through direct, as well as indirect, routes of impact.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this chapter was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (#20330133). The author thanks Vinai Norasakkunkit for his comments on a draft of this study.

REFERENCES Allport, F. H. (1924). The group fallacy in relation to social science. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19, 60–73. Asai, N. (2006). Shozoku shudan ni taisuru sabetsu/yugu ga gen’in kizoku ni ataeru eikyou [Causal attribution of discrimination and favoritism in a disadvantaged group]. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 77, 317–324 (in Japanese with an English abstract). Asai, N., & Karasawa, M. (2009, December). Influence of perceived social support on reporting discrimination. Poster presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Delhi, India. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull & R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 347– 370). New York: Guilford Press. Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y-y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38). New York: Psychology Press. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey, (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89–150). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. Hewstone, M. (1990). The ‘ultimate attribution error’? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335. Hioki, K., & Karasawa, M. (2010). Shudan no jittaisei ga shugouteki-ito to sekinin no handan ni oyobosu eikyou: Kigyou no ihoukoui wo meguru jikkenteki kenkyu. [Effects of group entitativity on the judgment of collective intentionality and responsibility: An experimental study of reactions to corporate crimes.] Japanese Journal of Psychology, 81, 9–16 (in Japanese with an English abstract). Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. (1976). Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative appraisal. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 389–420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.

26 • Minoru Karasawa Karasawa, M., & Sano, S. (1996). Determinants of category-based attributions: Salience, stereotyping, and causal inferences. Transactions of the Institute for Cultural Studies, Aichi Gakuin University, 11, 1–9. Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine high school shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194–203. Major, B. & Crocker, J. (1993). Social stigma: The consequences of attributional ambiguity. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 345–370). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 701–717. Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 125–144. O’Laughlin, M. J., & Malle, B. F. (2002). How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 33–48. Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129–135. Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 373–389. Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The internal and external causal loci of attributions to prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 620–628. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag. Teramae, S., & Karasawa, M. (2008). Shudan no koui ni taisuru itosei ninchi: Jiyu kijutsu ni yoru setsumei naiyou no bunseki. [Perception of intentionality in group actions: Content analysis of behavior explanations.] Journal of Human Environmental Studies, 6, 35–41 (in Japanese with an English abstract). Tsukamoto, S., & Karasawa, M. (2010, January). Understanding interpersonal differences: Perceptions of ethnic categories in relation to essentialism. Poster presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Las Vegas, NV. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

3 DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF ENTITATIVITY From Group Perceptions to Social Interaction David L. Hamilton, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Nate Way

In 1996, two papers were published, quite independently, that regenerated interest in a long-dormant topic. That topic was presented in an article by Campbell (1958), in which he introduced the less-thanuser-friendly term entitativity. (Following a talk on this topic, one of the authors was asked, “Was Campbell a stutterer?”) Campbell’s paper was not a report of empirical research but rather a conceptual analysis on the basis of which the “groupness of groups” could be determined. Drawing on Gestalt principles of perception, Campbell identified several properties that could be used to ascertain the extent to which an aggregate of individuals constitutes a group. These properties included the similarity and proximity of the individuals to each other, the extent of interaction among them, their degree of coordinated action, and the extent to which they share a common fate. These properties could be used to understand what makes a group really a group, and could also be used by an observer in perceiving the groupness of groups. Campbell’s analysis was stimulating, and in subsequent years his article and the concept were cited with some frequency. For reasons unknown to the present authors, however, very little research was spawned on the topic. The two papers mentioned in our opening sentence—by Brewer and Harasty (1996) and Hamilton and Sherman (1996)—also were primarily conceptual analyses rather than empirical reports. However, in the 15 years since their publication, theorizing and research on the

27

28 • David L. Hamilton, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Nate Way

perception of groups has expanded in new directions and has advanced our understanding of group perception in new ways (Hamilton, 2007). In this chapter, we discuss those developments in terms of the themes and foci of the two 1996 papers, highlighting their different (though not conflicting) emphases and reviewing the various types of research they generated. In fact, we argue that these two papers served as a catalyst for a body of research that has advanced our understanding of what “entitativity” is and how it functions in group perception, a body of research that continues to evolve and extend our knowledge about intergroup phenomena. Hamilton and Sherman’s (1996) approach was to focus on information-processing mechanisms that provide the foundation for group perceptions, in particular for perceiving group entitativity. In contrast to this cognitive emphasis, Brewer and Harasty’s (1996) chapter discussed a broad array of variables that would influence perceived entitativity, such as intergroup context, perceiver motives, and aspects of group representation and group structure. Brewer and Harasty also explored the implications of perceived group entitativity for some important downstream consequences. Our message in this chapter is that the research stimulated by these two papers has transformed the notion of entitativity from an intriguing idea into an important and viable area of research. Our goal is to bring that research together in a comprehensive and integrated manner.

COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS OF PERCEIVED ENTITATIVITY The focus of Hamilton and Sherman’s (1996) article was not on entitativity per se. Its primary purpose was to pursue an extended comparison of how perceivers process information about individual persons and groups. Drawing on the extensive impression formation literature, they argued that processing information about individuals is governed by a series of principles. These principles all derive from a basic premise that perceivers assume unity in the personalities of others, that persons are coherent entities. Based on that premise, other principles followed: that perceivers expect consistency in a person’s personality (as manifested in their traits, attitudes, and behaviors), draw inferences about the dispositional properties that characterize the person’s personality, develop an organized impression of the person, and seek to resolve inconsistencies in the information they learn about a person. All of these principles are supported by research on impression formation, inference processes, and person memory. Hamilton and

Dynamic Aspects of Entitativity • 29

Sherman’s (1996) primary argument was that perceivers make these assumptions less strongly about groups than about individuals, and they reviewed a considerable body of evidence that supported that argument. This analysis was a comparison between two different types of targets—persons and groups. Hamilton and Sherman (1996) then noted that there obviously is variation within each of these types—among individuals and among groups—in the extent to which they are perceived as having unity and coherence. Some individuals are perceived as having well-integrated personalities, while others are seen as more scattered, less well organized; similarly, some groups are seen as being highly organized and tightly knit, whereas others are perceived as having less unity. This variation among groups, they noted, corresponds to what Campbell (1958) referred to as entitativity (and in fact, Campbell had specifically stated that groups vary in the extent to which they possess this property). Hamilton and Sherman proposed that, for groups that are perceived as being high in entitativity, the same assumptions would be made as are held about an individual target (organization, consistency, inferred dispositions, and resolution of inconsistencies). But at that point there was little published evidence relating to this argument. Research following this analysis investigated several aspects of perceiving entitativity in groups. This work is summarized briefly here because several discussions of this literature are readily available (Hamilton, 2007; Hamilton, Sherman, & Castelli, 2002; Hamilton, Sherman, Crump, & Spencer-Rodgers, 2009; Hamilton, Sherman, & Maddox, 1999; Hamilton, Sherman, & Rodgers, 2004; Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2004; Lickel, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001; Rothbart & Park, 2004; Sherman, Hamilton, & Lewis, 1999; Sherman & Johnson, 2003; Yzerbyt, Castano, Leyens, & Paladino, 2000; Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001). In this section we highlight three lines of research that have developed. Cues to Entitativity One line of work has investigated the kinds of information on which people base their perceptions of group entitativity. These studies tested Campbell’s ideas about the properties of an aggregate that induce perceptions of groupness (Castano, Yzerbyt, & Bourguignon, 2003; Lickel et al., 2000). Confirming Campbell’s analysis in many respects, this research showed that groups are seen as more entitative, and people identify more with those groups, when there is high interaction among members; when the members share similar attributes, common goals,


and common outcomes; when group membership is important to the members; and when the groups have clear and identifiable boundaries. For example, Lickel et al. had participants rate a large number of groups on a series of scales assessing these variables, as well as the extent to which each group “qualified as a group” (a measure of entitativity). The groups rated were quite diverse and included a jury, a labor union, Jews, a family, people at a movie theater, roommates, Americans, people in line at a bank, and the cast of a play, among others. Lickel et al. found that several of the variables—interaction, importance, similarity, shared outcomes, and shared goals—were the primary predictors of entitativity. Moreover, consistent with Campbell’s observations, the groups varied widely in the extent to which they were perceived as having entitativity. Among these variables, similarity among group members initially took on particular importance, at least in the way questions were studied, perhaps because of its obvious correspondence with the work on perceptions of out-group homogeneity. More recently, its distinctive status has been questioned (Brewer, Weber, & Carini, 1995; Dasgupta, Banaji, & Abelson, 1999; Welbourne, 1999; Yzerbyt, Rogier, & Fiske, 1998; Crump, Hamilton, Sherman, Lickel, & Thakkar, 2010). We discuss the conceptual and empirical relationship between entitativity and homogeneity later in the chapter, in the section “Entitativity and Other Group Properties.” Perceived Group Types A second line of work has explored the notion of different types of groups. These group types vary in their levels of entitativity and in their defining properties. A number of authors have proposed classification schemes for conceiving of types of groups for various purposes (e.g., Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995; Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994; Wilder & Simon, 1998). Research stimulated by entitativity has pursued this question more systematically. Lickel et al. (2000) empirically (based on participants’ ratings) identified four types of groups: intimacy groups (family, friends, support groups), task groups (committee, jury, coworkers), social categories (males, Jews, gays), and loose associations (people waiting at a bus stop, people who like classical music). These groups differ in the extent to which they are perceived as having entitativity—decreasing entitativity in the order of group types listed above—and in the properties associated with them (Lickel et al., 2000; Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002; Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007). Specifically, intimacy groups are small, highly interactive groups that are important to their members and are unchanging over time. Task groups are also small and interactive, but


not as important to their members as are intimacy groups, and their members share common goals and outcomes. Social categories are very large and moderately important to their members, and changing one’s social category membership can be difficult. Loose associations are low on all of these variables except that joining or leaving them is quite easy, compared to the other group types. Moreover, perceivers have different intuitive theories of these group types, about their properties, and about the rules by which relationships in them are governed (Lickel, Rutchick, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2006; Lickel et al., 2001; Rutchick, Hamilton, & Sack, 2008; Sherman, Castelli, & Hamilton, 2002). One important issue facing virtually all studies identifying different types of groups is the question of whether the typology is in fact “real.” That is, most studies have used ratings or sortings of groups as a basis for analyses of a group typology. The concern is that the typology may be a product of deliberative thought while completing these tasks but may not represent group types that are spontaneously used in group perceptions. Sherman et al. (2002) addressed this question by adapting the “who said what” paradigm (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978). Participants saw a series of photos of male persons, each identified by a group label. The group labels were either intimacy groups (family, friend), task groups (jury member, coworker), or social categories (French, Presbyterian). The photos were then shown again and the participants’ task was to provide the group label for each person. Errors in the participants’ responses could either be within-group-type errors (identifying a “jury member” as a “coworker”) or between-grouptype errors (identifying a “Presbyterian” as a “coworker”). On the basis of chance, the two types of errors should occur with equal frequency. However, within-group-type errors were significantly more frequent. Why would this difference occur? The fact that groups of the same type were confused with each other more often than were groups of different types indicates that participants had spontaneously used these group types in processing and storing the descriptive information in memory. Thus, these group types appear to have a status beyond simple strategies for rating groups on rating scales. Participants have cognitive structures for these group types that they spontaneously use in processing information about groups. Perceiving Group Entitativity: Effects on Information Processing A third area of research has investigated the cognitive informationprocessing consequences that follow from perceiving a group as high or low in entitativity. That is, groups vary along a continuum of perceived entitativity (Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998), and a group’s location


on that continuum—high to low—affects the nature of and extent to which information about the group is processed. For example, when perceivers learn information about high entitativity groups, compared with low entitativity groups, they make more online inferences about the group (McConnell, Sherman, & Hamilton, 1994), stronger inferences (Yzerbyt et al., 1998), more extreme judgments (Castano, Sacchi, & Gries, 2003), and spontaneously engage in social comparative judgments among group members (Pickett, 2001; Pickett & Perrott, 2004). Also, information (exemplar vs. abstract information) acquired about high entitativity groups is represented in memory in different form compared with information about low entitativity groups (Johnson & Queller, 2003), and people have better memory for information learned about high than about low entitativity groups (McConnell, Sherman, & Hamilton, 1997; Wyer, Bodenhausen, & Srull, 1984). Finally, a persuasive message received from a high entitativity group (compared to a low entitativity group) engages more systematic processing of that information, resulting in differences in attitude change as a function of the entitativity of the source group (Rydell & McConnell, 2005). All of these findings document a more general point that perceivers process information about high entitativity groups more systematically and they integrate that information more thoroughly than is true for information learned about low entitativity groups. The research cited in these paragraphs all reflects an interest in understanding the cognitive underpinnings of perceiving group entitativity. The research has explored the use of external cues to infer entitativity, beliefs about different types of groups, the differing properties associated with different types of groups, and a variety of informationprocessing consequences in the ways that perceivers process information about groups. In these respects, this research seems to derive from the information-processing emphasis represented in Hamilton and Sherman’s (1996) comparison of cognitive parallels and differences in perceiving persons and groups.

INTUITIVE THEORIES OF ENTITATIVITY As noted earlier, research has empirically identified four distinct types of groups that differ in the extent to which they are perceived as possessing entitativity. Researchers have developed ideas about different forms of entitativity that pertain to different types of groups. In particular, Brewer, Hong, and Li (2004) proposed that people hold different intuitive “theories” of entitativity which, they postulated, people hold and apply in perceiving groups. They distinguished between two such


theories, which they called the essence and the agency theories of entitativity. These theories have different properties, diverging in their units of analysis, their assumptions about both intragroup consistency and intergroup similarity, and their expectations for group consistency and change. Specifically, the essence theory of entitativity emphasizes the general attributes (traits, stereotypes) characterizing a group, focuses on similarity and consistency among group members in their attributes and behaviors, highlights clear intergroup distinctions in these regards, and views the group as being consistent across time. In contrast, the agency theory of entitativity is process oriented, emphasizing a group’s goals; expects heterogeneity among group members; considers the group’s relations with (rather than similarities or differences with) outgroups; and expects dynamic change in the group over time. Brewer et al. (2004) emphasized that the essence and agency conceptions orient the perceiver to different bases for judgments of group entitativity. Consistent with this view, Ip, Chiu, and Wan (2006) demonstrated that physical similarity and coordinated action among group members trigger two separate routes to perceived entitativity. They orthogonally manipulated physical similarity and coordinated action among group members. The researchers found that manipulating the physical similarity of group members increased trait inferences about the group, that is, perceivers inferred that the group had stable, underlying traits. When the group members were physically dissimilar but were coordinated in action, perceivers inferred that the group members had common goals. These results support Brewer’s assertion that different group properties could lead to different ways of thinking about groups. Extending this line of reasoning, Rutchick et al. (2008) further developed the notion that groups can be construed in alternate ways, demonstrating that perceivers can judge the group’s entitativity on the basis of different group properties. Their analysis rests not on differences in types of groups (as in Lickel et al., 2000) but in ways of thinking about groups. They distinguished between categorical and dynamic ways of thinking about a group (Wilder & Simon, 1998), a distinction not unlike Brewer et al.’s (2004) essence and agency theories. Rutchick et al. argued that any group can be construed in alternate ways. A group can be thought of categorically, with a focus on similarities and differences among group members, or dynamically, with a focus on its actions as a unit, its goals, and its achievements. If so, then the perception of a group’s entitativity would rest on different properties, depending on how the group is construed. When thinking categorically, the similarities of and shared characteristics among group members would be important in


judging their existence as a category and hence these properties should predict judgments of the group’s entitativity. In contrast, when thinking dynamically, the collective actions of the group, the interaction among members, their common goals, and the extent of group organization would be important and hence these properties should predict judgments of group entitativity. To test these ideas, Rutchick et al. (2008) induced participants to think about groups with either a categorical or dynamic perspective and found that these two views weighted cues to entitativity differently. The researchers manipulated the participants’ theories of entitativity by having them think of a group of bees either categorically, as members of a bee category with prototypic features, or dynamically, as members of a particular beehive, each having specific roles and tasks to achieve group agency. Subsequently, all participants read descriptions of several target groups (a social caste, a political party, and a group of students) and rated the groups on various cues to entitativity. Rutchick et al. (2008) found that perceivers in whom a categorical construal had been induced used group similarity as a basis for judging entitativity, whereas those in whom a dynamic construal had been induced used group action and interaction as cues to entitativity. Thus, different cues were predictive of the same target group’s entitativity as a function of which way of construing had been induced. These findings are highly compatible with Brewer et al.’s (2004) theorizing about different intuitive theories of entitativity and their use in group perceptions. Brewer et al. (2004) also noted the possibility that cultural context could affect the perceiver’s view of group entitativity, perhaps by inducing specific ways of thinking about groups. Consistent with this view, Menon, Morris, Chiu, and Hong (1999) found that East Asians tended to assign as much or more autonomy to groups as they do to individuals. Participants from Hong Kong and the United States read a vignette about a maladjusted team member. The American participants attributed this scenario to the individual’s disposition (characterizing him as a “free rider”), whereas the Hong Kong participants held the individual and his team equally responsible for the situation (the individual for being a free rider and the group for not incorporating him well). In other words, participants in Hong Kong saw the group as having as much autonomy as the individual team member. Menon et al. (1999) found a similar pattern in an analysis of newspaper accounts of corporate scandals from the United States and Japan: American news stories referenced individual characteristics more frequently, while Japanese news stories more frequently referred to characteristics of the organizations involved. This work supports Brewer et al.’s suggestion that cultural


context may induce certain ways of thinking about groups; specifically, that collectivists are more likely than individualists to adopt a dynamic view of entitativity. These points are further reinforced by SpencerRodgers, Williams, Hamilton, Peng, and Wang (2007), who found that members of collectivistic cultures are more likely to perceive groups as high in entitativity. It seems that perceived entitativity plays a central role in group perception, and this role may be strengthened by certain cultural contexts. In sum, people appear to have different intuitive theories of entitativity. These theories imply different meanings of entitativity in different groups, they suggest different reasons for why a group is a group, and accordingly, they specify different bases for judging a group’s entitativity. These theoretical developments are of fairly recent vintage and obviously warrant further investigation of their parameters and their implications.

ENTITATIVITY AND OTHER GROUP PROPERTIES Brewer et al.’s (2004) distinction between the essence and agency theories of entitativity is important and has several implications, both conceptually and methodologically. As research on perceived entitativity progresses, it is important to distinguish the concept of entitativity from other related group properties. In this section, we briefly highlight some of these properties. Similarity In his 1958 article, Campbell proposed a number of different group properties that could serve as cues to entitativity. One of those was the perception of similarity, and Lickel et al. (2000) found that this was (among others) an effective cue to entitativity. Brewer et al.’s (2004) essence theory highlighted that entitativity can be based on perceptions of similarity among group members. Indeed, of all of the cues to perceiving entitativity, similarity has attracted particular attention, perhaps because it maps on well to the already existing literatures on perceptions of group variability and homogeneity. Yet Campbell was careful to delineate similarity as only one of several bases on which judgments of entitativity can be made, an assertion that others have supported in theory and research (Brewer et al., 2004; Castano, Yzerbyt, et al., 2003; Lickel et al., 2000; Rutchick et al., 2008). Yet some research has manipulated similarity among group members and referred to it as entitativity, or has measured participants’ perceptions of similarity among group members and called it entitativity. Therefore, it is


important, both conceptually and methodologically, to differentiate entitativity from similarity. Recent research by Crump et al. (2010) empirically demonstrated that entitativity and similarity can play different roles in perceptions of groups, including those of in-groups and out-groups. In two studies, they showed those in-groups are typically perceived as more highly entitative than out-groups, whereas out-groups are perceived as more homogeneous than in-groups. In a third study, Crump et al. manipulated either the entitativity of a group (e.g., whether group members pursued common goals) or the similarity of a group’s members (e.g., whether they shared attributes and exhibited similar behaviors) and then presented a series of sentences describing behaviors performed by individual group members. Participants then rated the group on measures of entitativity and similarity. If entitativity and similarity were the same construct, then manipulations of them would have equivalent effects on ratings of the group’s entitativity and similarity. Crump et al. found, however, that the entitativity manipulation only affected ratings of group entitativity and the similarity manipulation only affected ratings of group similarity. Thus, although perceived entitativity and group homogeneity are related constructs, they are separate concepts and can make unique contributions to group perception and intergroup phenomena. Essence Brewer et al. (2004) refer to their first intuitive theory of entitativity by the term essence. It is clear that, in their usage, this term refers to similarities in attributes and consistencies in behavior. Other usages of the same term carry much more extensive meaning (Gelman, 2003; Haslam et al., 2004; Rothbart & Taylor, 1992). This usage typically refers to a person endowing some object, person, or group with an inner essence such that the target of perception is viewed as a natural kind, a category (or category member) whose defining attributes are perceived as having their basis in nature and are inalterable. Hamilton (2007) has discussed the diverse perspectives in the use of this term in recent social psychological writing. In the present context, there is little in Brewer et al.’s discussion (see Brewer et al., 2004, Table 2.2) to suggest that an essence theory of entitativity includes the assumption that a group is a natural kind. Rather, their use of the term reflects similarities and shared attributes among group members as a basis for judging entitativity, rather than assumptions of category definitions as natural kinds.


Agency Brewer et al.’s (2004) second intuitive theory of entitativity is referred to as an agency conception, capturing the perception of group entitativity as a group’s ability to get things done and to have the means to accomplish its goals. It is here that Brewer et al.’s ideas truly become a view of “dynamic entitativity,” as this conception highlights the importance of group organization, planning and coordination, and meaningful activity. In this view, groups are seen as groups because they are coherent, cohesive action centers: they are alive, they are doing, and they have purpose. In comparison, other conceptions and analyses of entitativity seem quite static. In our view, Brewer et al.’s recognizing that the perception of group entitativity can be based on these qualities is a valuable extension of past thinking and offers the opportunity to explore the interface between the perception of entitativity and actual group functioning. We know of very little research investigating the role of a group’s agency in the perception of its entitativity. In one of the early writings on how groups are perceived to be groups, Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, and Banaji (1998) advanced the argument that group activity both implies and is implied by group entitativity. That is, groups that are active, behaving in coordinated fashion, and pursuing shared goals are seen as entitative, and in turn, if a group is believed to be high in entitativity, it is perceived as being active and agentic. Spencer-Rogers, Hamilton, and Sherman (2007, Study 2) investigated the interrelations among several group-relevant constructs (entitativity, homogeneity, essence, role differentiation, agency, and stereotyping) in people’s judgments of both task groups and social categories. All of these variables were significantly correlated with entitativity, but the highest correlations (for both task groups and social categories) were between agency and entitativity.

THE ROLE OF CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION IN PERCEIVING ENTITATIVITY In the other 1996 publication referred to in our introduction, Brewer and Harasty (1996) adopted a broad perspective on understanding the roots and consequences of perceived group entitativity. These authors considered the roles of several group, intergroup, and motivational variables and then discussed implications of perceiving entitativity for several outcomes. For example, they proposed that a number of group properties, such as group size, majority or minority status, and group variability, can influence how the group is represented in memory—in terms of


individual exemplars or abstracted representations—with consequent differences in perceptions of entitativity. In addition, intergroup factors, such as intergroup comparisons of in-group and out-group, can influence perceptions of entitativity. They also discussed motives of the perceiver that bear on perceiving entitativity in a group (including in-group versus out-group differences). Finally, they explored implications of perceived entitativity for outcome variables such as intra- and intergroup differentiation, generalizations across group members, and stereotyping. At the time their chapter was written, there was very little empirical evidence addressing these issues. There is now a growing body of literature speaking to these questions. Although the cognitive information-processing work cited above has been extensively reviewed and discussed, there have been few attempts to bring the other side of this literature together in a coherent fashion. In the following sections, we attempt to do so. Entitativity and the Evaluation of In-Groups and Out-Groups The focus of Campbell’s (1958) analysis was on antecedents to perceiving entitativity—the stimulus cues that might be used to infer that a collection of people constitutes a group. As we discussed, much of the research stimulated by this analysis has investigated the largely cognitive antecedents of and information-processing mechanisms underlying such judgments. Brewer and Harasty (1996) observed that motivational variables may play an important role in driving perceptions of entitativity. In the years since their chapter, several lines of work have provided support for their observation. Perceptions of group entitativity may have a polarizing effect on one’s attitude toward a group, depending on whether the group in question is an in-group or an out-group. Some studies report a negative association between perceptions of out-group entitativity and evaluations of that out-group, whereas others have found a positive association between perceptions of in-group entitativity and in-group evaluations (Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Castano, Yzerbyt, et al., 2003). This difference may be due in part to the fact that one of the group characteristics that entitativity implies is group agency (Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, et al., 2007). If an out-group is highly agentic, outside perceivers may assume that the group’s agency may pose a threat and could be used against their own group, which consequently would generate negative evaluations of entitative out-groups. On the other hand, if an in-group is highly agentic, its members would assume that the group’s agency will be used to their advantage, which would lead in-group members


to positively evaluate entitative in-groups. This process may also lead one to place particularly high value on an entitative in-group and to strongly identify with it (an issue to which we will return later in the section “Entitativity and In-Group Identification”). Motivational Influences on Perceived Group Entitativity Motivational Functions of Group Types As discussed earlier, research has documented that perceivers differentiate among several types of groups, have cognitive representations of these types, and use that typology in processing group information (Lickel et al., 2000; Sherman et al., 2002). But why make, maintain, and use such group-type distinctions? Why wouldn’t a basic differentiation between individuals and groups be sufficient to aid in our attending to and coping with information we confront in the social environment? Johnson et al. (2006) argued that these differentiations are important because different kinds of groups serve different functions in people’s lives. Some groups help fulfill the basic need for affiliation, some fulfill achievement-oriented needs, and others satisfy identity-related needs, such as self-esteem maintenance. Specifically, they proposed that intimacy groups (e.g., family, friends) are closely associated with affiliation needs, task groups (e.g., members of a jury, coworkers) are closely associated with achievement needs, and social categories (e.g., women, blacks) are closely associated with identity-related needs. These associations between group types and need fulfillment may be particularly pronounced when groups are highly entitative. In a series of studies—two studies using questionnaire measures: one using an implicit measure and one using a priming procedure—Johnson et al. provided evidence documenting these differential associations between group types and the psychological needs they serve. Uncertainty Reduction Perceptions of in-group entitativity may also serve to reduce subjective levels of uncertainty (Hogg, 2000, 2004). Uncertainty reduction theory postulates that humans have a universal need for certainty that stems from our desire to live in predictable and tractable environments (Hogg, 2000). When this need is not met, we search for ways to fulfill it. One way to achieve this aim is by attaching ourselves to groups of individuals that provide us with a greater degree of certainty. Groups that are high in entitativity are especially likely to provide this sense of certainty because they possess stable underlying properties, promote clarity in social representations, and facilitate the sense that one is part of a group that has a real existence.


Research evidence supports this account (Hogg, Sherman, Dierselhuis, Maitner, & Moffit, 2007; Sherman, Hogg, & Maitner, 2009). For example, in a study that utilized conservative and liberal political parties in Australia, it was found that, under conditions of uncertainty, people identified more strongly with highly entitative in-groups, whereas the strength of this association was reduced when such judgments were made under conditions of relative certainty (Hogg et al., 2007). In a related vein, Yzerbyt et al. (2000) showed that mortality salience manipulations engender perceptions of in-group entitativity. This finding was originally discussed from a terror management theory perspective, in which perceptions of in-group entitativity were thought to act as buffers against death anxiety. However, this result could also be viewed from the perspective of uncertainty reduction theory. That is, a sense of uncertainty about one’s own future could be alleviated by perceiving one’s membership groups as high in entitativity. De-Entifying Group Perceptions Motivation affects more than the perception of in-groups. Studies investigating the intersection of motivation and perceptions of entitativity allow for predictions to be made about how we perceive other types of groups as well. Pilialoha and Brewer (2006) used basic principles of balance theory (Heider, 1958) to predict when decision groups were and were not likely to be perceived as entitative bodies. Participants were presented with a positively valenced decision group (e.g., the student body court, the Supreme Court) and were informed about a ruling that the court had made on an issue about which the participants had already formed a relatively strong opinion. The court ruling either conformed to the participants’ point of view on the matter or contradicted it. After reading about the case and the court’s decision, participants’ perceptions of the entitativity of the decision group were assessed. When the court and the participant had a common view, a balanced state existed. Pilialoha and Brewer postulated that balance can result in increased perceptions of entitativity of the target group. However, when the court and the participants’ view differed, a state of imbalance existed, which, according to balance theory, would motivate the person to change some element to restore balance (Heider, 1958). One way in which this inconsistency could be resolved was through a process Pilialoha and Brewer called de-entification, whereby participants come to see the decision group as particularly low in entitativity. This is, in fact, what Pilialoha and Brewer found. When the court and the participant agreed, the court was seen as higher in entitativity than when the court and the participant disagreed. The process


of de-entifying the decision group not only restored balance but also influenced the perceived unity or coherence of the court. Thus, perceptions of a group’s entitativity can be influenced by the perceiver’s motivation to preserve or to restore balance. In a related vein, supportive opinion groups are perceived as more entitative than oppositional opinion groups. Also, more extreme opinion groups tend to be perceived as particularly entitative. However, the precise motivations underlying these effects are not fully understood (Askevis-Leherpeux, 2005). Entitativity and In-Group Identification Research on in-group identification and perceptions of in-group entitativity highlights other ways in which an entitative group can be a resource for an individual (Castano, Yzerbyt, et al., 2003; Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, & Sacchi, 2002; Yzerbyt et al., 2000). The relationship between entitativity and in-group identification would seem to be straightforward, though there has been surprisingly little evidence bearing on that relationship. Following social identity theory, we know that people’s identities are in part derived from their group memberships. Therefore, it would be in one’s vested interests to regard one’s in-groups as “real” and viable groups that make a difference, certainly in one’s own life. Further, it would seem that the more strongly one identifies with a group, the more one would want to believe in its viability. This reasoning led Sherman et al. (1999) to propose that there should be a positive relationship between identification with an in-group and one’s perception of that group’s entitativity. They also suggested a simple extension of this reasoning. Each person belongs to many groups, and those groups vary in how important they are to the person and hence how much they identify with it. Therefore people should perceive variation in the entitativity of their own group memberships, and that variation ought to be correlated with the importance of those groups to the person. Lickel et al. (2000, Study 3) reported evidence consistent with this line of reasoning. Their evidence is correlational so no claims about causal direction can be made, although it seems plausible that the relationship may be bidirectional. That is, if people identify strongly with a group, they will be inclined to see it has high entitativity, and conversely, if one’s in-group is a high entitativity group, then it seems well worth identifying with. Castano, Yzerbyt et al. (2003) took a different, and experimental, approach to investigating this relationship. They conducted four experiments testing hypotheses that high levels of entitativity induce strong


identification, whereas low levels of entitativity reduce identification, with the in-group. European participants were presented materials designed to influence perceptions of an entitativity-relevant characteristic of the European Union (EU), and then their identification with the EU was assessed. In each of these experiments a different entitativity cue was manipulated (e.g., common fate, intragroup similarity, salience of in-group, boundedness of in-group). In each case they rated the extent to which they identified with EU. After being exposed to these entitativity manipulations, European subjects (those with moderate preexisting attitudes that were not fixed) reported higher levels of identification with the EU relative to control conditions. Thus, perceptions of in-group entitativity can lead to increased identification with the in-group. As Brewer (1979) originally intuited, recent empirical findings from minimal group experiments suggest that perceptions of in-group entitativity can lead to positive in-group regard (i.e., valuing the in-group), even in the absence of meaningful contrasting out-groups (Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Oriña, 2006). What is responsible for these surprising effects? The answer may lie, in part, in how perceptions of group entitativity influence perceptions of group agency. As previously mentioned, perceptions of in-group entitativity may also be accompanied by perceptions of group agency and the belief that this agency will be used to one’s advantage. Such a belief may lead one to identify more strongly with highly entitative in-groups.

ENTITATIVITY AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY Collective responsibility refers to the phenomenon that members of a group can be held responsible for the wrongdoings of another group member. If one group member behaves in an unlawful, immoral, or socially despicable manner, then other members of the group may, under certain conditions, be judged responsible (morally, socially, though not legally) for that person’s actions. Lickel, Schmader, and Hamilton (2003) proposed that the extent to which collective responsibility occurs is a function of the perceived entitativity of the group. The more cohesive, interdependent, and tight-knit the group is perceived to be, the more other group members will be judged collectively responsible for a member’s deviant behavior. Lickel et al. (2003) examined the collective responsibility that participants assigned to groups that were somehow related to the Columbine High School shootings. Specifically, they found that both the killers’ parents and their peer group (the Trenchcoat Mafia) were held as collectively responsible for the incident, and the extent of this judged responsibility


was correlated with the perceived entitativity of those groups. Lickel et al. also explored the possible thought processes that mediated the relationship between perceptions of a group’s entitativity and collective responsibility. They found evidence for two such thought processes. First, an “inference of commission” occurred when participants assumed that other group members somehow encouraged or sympathized with the transgression. Second, an “inference of omission” occurred when participants assumed that other group members neglected to act in a way that could have prevented the transgression. Both these lines of thinking resulted in participants assigning more collective responsibility to entitative groups that were indirectly related to the Columbine High School shootings. Other research extending this work (Denson, Lickel, Curtis, Stenstrom, & Ames, 2006) has shown that collective responsibility can occur in judgments of transgressions in different types of groups (e.g., intimacy, task, social categories). Again, the extent of collective responsibility was directly related to the perceived entitativity of the group.

INTERGROUP CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED ENTITATIVITY Brewer and Harasty (1996) discussed the antecedents of perceived entitativity because they believed that it would play a role in several important outcomes of intergroup perception. They argued that perceived entitativity would affect cognitive representations of groups, thereby influencing a perceiver’s judgments, evaluations, and behaviors toward different groups and individual members. Indeed, since their article was published, a growing number of researchers have extended this line of thinking by empirically demonstrating the pervasiveness of perceived entitativity in both person and group perception processes. Aggression Entitative groups not only foster greater collective responsibility but they also foster more retributive acts of aggression (Gaertner, Iuzzini, & O’Mara, 2008). Gaertner et al. (2008) created groups consisting of one participant and three confederates, and they manipulated the entitativity of the confederates. During the experiment the participant was rudely rejected by one of the confederates and was removed from the group. Later, the participant had an opportunity for retributive aggression by administering a loud noise to the three remaining group members. Consistent with predictions, the participant was much more willing to aggress against the three-person group, by using the noise


blaster, when the transgressor belonged to an entitative group compared to when the transgressor belonged to a nonentitative group. Note that only one of the three persons rejected the participant, but the aggressive retribution was administered to all three group members. However, this only happened when the target group was high in entitativity and not when it was a low entitativity group. Generalization There is considerable evidence that people make spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) about an actor as they encode behavioral information (Carlston & Skowronski, 2005; Todorov & Uleman, 2002, 2003, 2004; Uleman, Saribay, & Gonzalez, 2008; Winter & Uleman, 1984). Crawford, Sherman, and Hamilton (2002) extended this work to investigate this process in the formation of conceptions of groups and how that process is affected by the perceived entitativity of the group. Using Carlston and Skowronski’s savings-in-relearning paradigm, they demonstrated entitativity’s role in STI and spontaneous trait transference (STT) processes. Participants learned about members of two groups consisting of eight members each. Participants were given information conveying that the groups were either high or low in entitativity. In the first phase of the experiment, each stimulus person was described by a trait-implying behavior. For each group, half of its members’ behaviors implied one trait (e.g., aggressive) and the behaviors of the other half implied another trait (e.g., intelligent). In the second phase of the study, participants were shown the same individual group members, this time paired with the trait implied by their original behavior (the inferred trait) or the trait implied by other members of their group (the transference of a trait to a different group member). In the third phase of the procedure, participants completed a cued-recall task in which they were again shown the photographs and, for each one, were asked to report the trait that had been previously paired with it. The rationale is that recall of the paired trait may be facilitated by the trait inferences and transferences that took place during the first phase of the experiment (i.e., STIs and STTs from Phase 1 would facilitate target-trait “relearning” in Phase 2). These recall data showed that perceivers made more STIs for the members of the low entitativity groups than for members of high entitativity groups, whereas trait transferences (of a trait implied by one member’s behavior to another member of the same group) occurred more frequently for high than for low entitativity groups. These trait transferences have important meaning because they indicate that, for high entitativity groups, traits implied by one person’s behavior become applied to all members of the group, and through


this process, a more general group impression is formed. Moreover, when trait transferences across group members are made, perceivers do not cognitively distinguish among group members. Thus, when perceiving high entitativity groups, group members become interchangeable through the generalization of traits to all group members. This is important because, ever since Allport’s (1954) classic treatise, the generalization of traits to all group members has been a hallmark of stereotyping. Thus, for perceptions of high entitativity groups, Crawford et al. (2002) have demonstrated a cognitive process (STT) that produces the groundwork for stereotype formation. Stereotyping How, then, does entitativity relate to stereotypes of groups? SpencerRodgers, Hamilton, et al. (2007) investigated the role of entitativity, and other group-relevant concepts, in stereotyping. Participants rated four social categories (e.g., Latinos) and four task groups (e.g., juries) on scales assessing perceived entitativity, homogeneity, essence (boundedness, inductive potential, meaningfulness, stability, naturalness, and inalterability; Haslam et al., 2000), role differentiation (extent that there is role delineation among group members and behaviors typical of group members), and agency (ability to act collectively and effectively). They also rated the groups on 38 attributes, and for each group, eight of the attributes were (based on pretesting) stereotypic of that group. Analyses showed that perceived entitativity directly predicted stereotyping for each of the eight groups. In addition, although the other group-related variables also predicted (at least to some degree) stereotyping, mediational analyses showed that entitativity significantly mediated the effects of those variables—homogeneity, essentialism, role differentiation, and agency—on stereotyping. Finally, additional analyses showed that the relationship between perceived entitativity and stereotyping was not mediated by homogeneity, essentialism, role differentiation, and agency. These findings led Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, et al. to conclude that entitativity plays a central role in stereotyping and group perception more generally.

CONCLUSION We began this chapter by referring to two papers published in 1996 (Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996) which brought the concept of entitativity back into focus and stimulated a considerable amount of research on that topic. The accumulated evidence provides ample documentation that the perception of group entitativity has an


important bearing on the way groups are perceived. This research has investigated the cues people use to infer group entitativity, distinctions among different types of groups and how they differ in perceived entitativity, consequences of perceiving group entitativity on information processing, intuitive theories about different types of entitativity, the influence of contextual and motivational variables on perceived entitativity, and a variety of consequences of perceiving group entitativity for group perception. In sum, those two 1996 papers were a catalyst for generating new knowledge about an important and multifaceted aspect of group perception. Despite this progress, there are still opportunities for extending this inquiry to questions that have not yet been adequately addressed. In this concluding section, we highlight some of those questions. The research we have reviewed has addressed an impressive array of questions. Yet it is safe to say that nearly all of these studies have focused on the “mental experience” of entitativity in the perceiver. As such, the dependent variables in these studies have been judgments of groups, recall of information, response times to group-relevant stimuli, and other measures familiar to social cognition researchers. All this effort has been very informative. However, we have had very little to say about the effects of perceived entitativity on behavior. Numerous interesting and important questions pertaining to behavioral outcomes need to be investigated. When we perceive groups as being high versus low in entitativity, what differences are there in the behavioral functioning of these groups? How do they differ in organizational structure, leadership, communication patterns, and the regulatory norms and guidelines operating within the group? How do differences in perceived entitativity of a group affect the behavior of individuals, either members of the group itself or outsiders affected by the group? How does the perceived entitativity of groups affect the relations between groups, in either cooperative or adversarial contexts? Do the answers to these questions depend on the group types (intimacy, task, social category) involved? These questions remain relatively unexplored, yet seem to us to be important derivatives from the work we have discussed. These concerns lead us to our second observation about needed future directions. We have learned a lot about how perceivers infer group entitativity from information (stimulus cues) about the group, and we know that groups vary considerably in the extent to which they possess (or at least are perceived to possess) these properties. An important (and as yet unanswered) question is, how do judgments of entitativity relate to the actual entitativity of those groups? And how well do the cues used in judging entitativity correspond (both in which


cues are used and in the extent to which they are used, i.e., weighted) to the importance of those same variables in defining a group’s actual entitativity (see Hamilton et al., 1998; Moreland, 2004). Knowledge of the kinds of discrepancies that can occur between the use of cues and their usefulness would be informative about biases in judging entitativity (and other group properties). Moreover, we know (as reviewed earlier) that different intuitive theories of entitativity rest on different stimulus cues. What we are suggesting is that one could also determine the usefulness (validity) of those different cues as indicators of actual group entitativity. Such questions may be particularly important when thought about in relation to the different types of groups (intimacy, task, social categories) identified in research and discussed earlier. Historically, “group perception” in social psychology has meant the study of perceptions of social categories (stereotypes), an obviously important topic as all of us both belong to and perceive many social categories. However, think about our daily lives. We spend much of our time perceiving, interacting with, and, indeed, living in intimacy groups (family, friends) and task groups (career-related work groups, noncareer-related organizations). Yet we know very little about how people perceive those groups, what determines variation in the perceived entitativity of those groups, and what difference those perceptions make. Developing our theme in the previous paragraph, we have the potential opportunity to learn about how perceptions of these groups correspond to the actual dynamics of those group types. There already exists vast literature on the nature and functioning of both intimacy groups (e.g., research on close relationships) and task groups (e.g., group dynamics research). Investigating the relations between how those types of groups are perceived and how they actually function would provide research bridging the gap between the perception of and behavior dynamics in groups. Entitativity refers to the extent to which an aggregate of people is perceived to be an independent entity, to have real existence as a group. We do not identify with, attach importance to, or show favoritism toward a group, nor do we stereotype or discriminate against a group, unless and until that group is perceived as a meaningful entity. In that sense, the perception of group entitativity is a fundamental building block on which all other aspects of group perception are based.

REFERENCES Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243–250. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

48 • David L. Hamilton, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Nate Way Askevis-Leherpeux, F. (2005). For and against: Perceived entitativity of supportive and opposed opinion groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 27–37. Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 347–370). New York: Guilford Press. Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38). New York: Psychology Press. Brewer, M. B., Weber, J. G., & Carini, B. (1995). Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization versus individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 29–40. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (2005). Linking vs thinking: Evidence for the different associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 884–898. Castano, E., Sacchi, S., & Gries, P. H. (2003). The perception of the other in international relations: Evidence for the polarizing effect of entitativity. Political Psychology, 24, 449–468. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and I like it: The impact of in-group entitativity on in-group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 735–754. Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M.-P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore I exist: In-group identification, in-group entitativity, and in-group bias. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 28, 135–143. Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076–1094. Crump, S. A., Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., Lickel, B., & Thakkar, V. (2010). Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1212–1230. Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M. R., & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 991–1003. Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 280–291. Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Curtis, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Ames, D. R. (2006). The roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 43–61.


Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., & O’Mara, M. M. (2008). When rejection by one fosters aggression against many: Multiple-victim aggression as a consequence of social rejection and perceived groupness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 958–970. Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Witt, M., & Oriña, M. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426–439. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, D. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broandening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1077–1101. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Castelli, L. (2002). A group by any other name…: The role of entitativity in group perception. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 139–166). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., Crump, S. A., & Spencer-Rodgers, J. (2009). The role of entitativity in stereotyping: Processes and parameters. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 179–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 606–626). New York: Guilford Press. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Rodgers, J. S. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism, and stereotypes. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the study of homogeneity, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 39–60). New York: Psychology Press. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2004). Essentialism and entitativity: Structures of beliefs about the ontology of social categories. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception (pp. 61–78). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.

50 • David L. Hamilton, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Nate Way Hogg, M. A. (2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, selfconception, and small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 246–276. Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T., & Moffitt, G. (2007). Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 135–142. Ip, G., Chiu, C., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait- versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 368–381. Johnson, A. L., Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., Ferreira, M., et al. (2006). A functional perspective on group memberships: Differential need fulfillment in a group typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 707–719. Johnson, A. L., & Queller, S. (2003). The mental representations of high and low entitativity groups. Social Cognition, 21(2), 101–119. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129–140. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. Lickel, B., Rutchick, A., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2006). Intuitive theories of group types and relational principles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 28–39. Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194–204. McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Online and memory-based aspects of individual and group target judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 173–185. McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Target entitativity: Implications for information processing about individual and group targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 750–762. Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 701–717. Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (2004). Entitativity and social integration: Managing beliefs about the reality of groups. In V. Yzerbyt, C. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Contributions to the study of homogeneity, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 419–437). New York: Psychology Press. Pickett, C. L. (2001). The effects of entitativity beliefs on implicit comparisons between group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 515–525. Pickett, C. L., & Perrott, D. A. (2004). Shall I compare thee? Perceived entitativity and ease of comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 283–289.


Pickett, C. L., Silver, M. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of in-group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546–568. Pilialoha, B. R. U., & Brewer, M. B. (2006). Motivated entitativity: Applying balance theory to group perception. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 235–247. Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between commoninterest and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493. Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (2004). The mental representation of social categories: Category boundaries, entitativity, and essentialism. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 79–100). New York: Psychology Press. Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 11–36). London: Sage. Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., & Sack, J. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 905–921. Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 99–110. Sherman, D. K., Hogg, M. A., & Maitner, A. T. (2009). Perceived polarization: Reconciling in-group and intergroup perceptions under uncertainty. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 95–109. Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 328–342. Sherman, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Lewis, A. C. (1999). Perceived entitativity and the social identity value of group memberships. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 80–110). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Sherman, S. J., & Johnson, A. L. (2003). Perceiving groups: How, what and why? In G. V. Bodenahusen & A. J. Lambert (Eds.), Foundations of social cognition: A Festschrift in honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr. (pp. 155–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388. Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., Hamilton, D. L., Peng, K., & Wang, L. (2007). Culture and group perception: Dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 525–543. Taylor, S., Fiske, S., Etcoff, N., & Ruderman, A. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793.

52 • David L. Hamilton, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Nate Way Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors’ faces: Evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1051–1065. Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2003). The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors’ faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 549–562. Todorov, A., & Uleman, J. S. (2004). The person reference process in spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 482–493. Uleman, J. S., Saribay, S. A., & Gonzalez, C. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329–360. Welbourne, J. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 481–508. Wilder, D., & Simon, A. F. (1998). Categorical and dynamic groups: Implication for social perception and intergroup behavior. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Winter, L. & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 237–252. Wyer, R. S., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Srull, T. K. (1984). The cognitive representation of persons and groups and its effect on recall and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 445–469. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Castano, E., Leyens, J.-Ph., & Paladino, P. (2000). The primacy of the in-group: The interplay of entitativity and identification. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 257–295. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rogier, A., & Fiske, S. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1090–1104.

4 NEW EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON THEORY OF MIND Linnda R. Caporael and Glenn D. Reeder

Premack and Woodruff (1978) conducted pioneering studies on the question of whether chimpanzees are capable of inferring the goals and intentions of other agents and, in the process, coined the term theory of mind. Although their work prompted a lively debate about what it is to be human, the emerging consensus is that nonhuman species are capable of only the most rudimentary types of mind reading (Penn & Povinelli, 2007). Thus, although Tarzan’s pet ape, Cheeta, was capable of basic imitation, joint attention, and even understanding immediate desires and intentions of others, it would never think that Tarzan held a false belief about the location of the nearest watering hole. More advanced forms of mind reading—recognizing that other agents may have false beliefs, form sequences of plans, or hold metacognitions about themselves or others—are probably unique to humans (Malle, 2002; Penn & Povinelli, 2007). Traditionally, attribution theory (Gilbert, 1998; Kelley, 1973), and the study of social cognition that followed on its heels (Wyer & Srull, 1984), painted a picture of a perceiver who sees behavior as a function of a person’s traits and the surrounding situation (Reeder, 2009a). With few exceptions (Malle, 1999; Read & Miller, 1993), inferences about mental states such as beliefs and motives played no role in most of the dominant models of person perception (Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull, 1988; Trope, 1986). But this view has changed. The new chapter on mind

53

54 • Linnda R. Caporael and Glenn D. Reeder

perception (Epley & Waytz, 2010) in the fifth edition of the prestigious Handbook of Social Psychology exemplifies this movement. Mind perception is distinctive because (1) it deals with “preattributional” processes or the degree to which a mind is present, and (2) it broadens the scope of social agents to “include any entity that acts interdependently with others” (Epley & Waytz, 2010, p. 4). This shift also brings social psychological theorizing into contact with exciting advances in neighboring fields such as developmental and comparative psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, and evolutionary theory (Goldman, 2006; Iacoboni, 2009; Malle & Hodges, 2005; Mitchell, 2009). Epley & Waytz (2010) point out that “mind perception” is a classical philosophical problem concerning we can know that others have minds when we have access only to our own. “Although people seem readily able to solve the classic philosophical version of the other minds problem, the philosophical version captures the main theme of all current research on mind perception…” (p. 499). In this chapter, we juxtapose theory and research on mind perception with an evolutionary-developmental perspective on how people might so readily able to read other minds. The next section presents basic processes and questions in theory of mind research, with a particular focus on a well-known debate about whether we know other minds because we can simulate them or whether we have innate capacities that supply knowledge or directives for gaining knowledge to understand, predict, and manipulate the activities of others. Following that, we briefly describe an evolutionary model based on the repeated assembly of core configurations, subgroups of face-to-face groups that recur in daily life, ontogeny, and (presumably) evolutionary history. With the background in those two areas, we attempt to put them into a productive alignment.

BASIC PROCESSES OF MIND READING Despite its increasing currency, theory of mind has been defined in a variety of ways and overlaps with related concepts such as mind reading and folk psychology, also known as common-sense psychology and implicit theory among other names (Kelley, 1992). Theory of mind can be employed to denote (1) a capacity to reason about mental states (e.g., language acquisition and working memory capacity may contribute to higher level mind reading), and (2) the actual psychological processes that are involved in thinking about mental states (e.g., simulation of another person’s mental states). This set of processes, specifically, is what we call mind reading. As well, theory of mind can refer to (3) a structured set of concepts (such as a database) about

New Evolutionary Perspectives on Theory of Mind • 55

mental states (Gopnik & Wellman, 1994; Nichols & Stich, 2003), and even (4) the area of research that is devoted to each of the above topics. The topic of folk psychology comes closest to the third definition, involving the layperson’s accumulated sociocultural wisdom about the nature of human behavior (Lillard, 1998). Knowledge of this sort includes what Heider (1958) referred to as naive psychology, with a particular focus on mental concepts such as beliefs, desires, and intentions. In this way, folk psychology is both broader and narrower than theory of mind. Folk beliefs are broader in the sense that it incorporates not only cognitive (theory of mind-like) explanations of behavior but also potentially those that rely on motivational or strictly behaviorist explanations. Yet the folk psychology perspective is narrow in the sense that it does not adequately address the scientifically identified psychological processes of mind reading—including automatic processes (Dijksterhuis, 2010; Morris & Mason, 2009; Reeder, 2009b). For this reason, theory of mind and folk psychology are neither interchangeable nor opposing concepts.

USING IMPLICIT THEORY TO PREDICT OTHER MINDS Modern theory of mind has a complex history beginning in the philosophy of science and mind. It starts with the quandary of “other minds.” How can two people, whose thoughts are enclosed within separate skulls, ever know each other’s thoughts? The literature on theory of mind offers two apparently competing solutions, which are of general interest in social psychology, a discipline uniquely qualified to serve as a hub of research in the area (Epley & Waytz, 2010; Goldman, 2006). One solution to the quandary is called the theory-theory (Gopnik & Wellman, 1994), according to which children and adults operate like scientists who acquire a set of implicit principles or theories about the workings of the physical and social world. In the process of learning about other minds, children acquire a knowledge base or folk psychology about the beliefs, desires, and intentions of others. In this acquired theory, people act on the basis of their desires, beliefs, and intentions (e.g., Jane buys a Starbucks latte every afternoon because she thinks it makes her more alert). In addition, the theory views people as capable of metacognition about the mental states of self and others (e.g., Jane doesn’t know that I know she is such a loyal Starbucks customer). Developmental psychologists have conducted most of the research on theory of mind, using children as participants. Many of these studies utilize a false beliefs paradigm (Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001). For example, participants may be told that Suzy left her iPod in her


backpack, but that her mother subsequently removed it (without Suzy’s knowledge) and placed the iPod on its charging dock. Participants are then invited to guess where Suzy will look for her iPod. Although older children and adults will guess that Suzy will look in her backpack, children younger than 4 years of age tend to fail this test. How might the theory-theory approach explain the successful performance of older children and adults? This approach suggests that perceivers dip into their repository of folk psychological knowledge for an answer. In the case of the iPod, the homespun wisdom offers a simple prediction: People typically look for things where they last saw them. The implication, then, is that younger children fail the test because they have yet to acquire the necessary knowledge base.

USING SIMULATION TO PREDICT OTHER MINDS The second theory of mind reading suggests that perceivers attempt to place themselves in another person’s shoes and view the world from that new perspective. Consider the false beliefs task described above. A perceiver might ask herself, “If I was Suzy and I did not know that my mom moved the iPod, where would I look for it?” Mitchell (2009) suggests that such simulation is just one part of mind reading and that mind reading may also require that perceivers suppress their own current mental states (e.g., I know the iPod is on the charger, but Suzy does not) and decide if the target person is similar enough to warrant a simulation (e.g., I think I understand how kids like Suzy think). Indeed, people commonly report using a simulation strategy of this sort when they try to understand others (Goldman, 2006; Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003). It is worth noting that although the above example of simulation appears effortful, people can merely project their own beliefs, preferences, and motives onto others, without engaging in an effortful simulation (Reeder & Trafimow, 2005). Not surprisingly, such projection can be biased in a number of ways (Birch & Bloom, 2004; Epley & Waytz, 2010). For example, consider a study in which perceivers were first asked to engage in vigorous exercise before completing a social judgment task (Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003). In the judgment task, the perceivers were told about a group of hikers who lost their way and were short on drinking water. Due to their previous physical exertion, these perceivers were particularly likely to assume that the hikers would be thirsty (as opposed to hungry). In other words, our own experiences can bias our efforts to understand another person’s world.


It seems clear that mind readers are capable of both using abstract knowledge (theory) and performing a cognitive simulation. But what determines when each strategy is employed? A common answer has emerged from philosophers (Nichols & Stich, 2003), social cognition researchers (Ames, 2004), and neuroscientists (Mitchell, 2009). People tend to see others as either similar to or different from themselves and that determination underlies the strategy used for mind reading. To the extent that another person is seen as similar, the perceiver is more likely to rely on simulation. For instance, suppose we are told that another person, similar in age and occupation to ourselves, shares our hobby of going boating on weekends. If our own reasons for this activity include wanting to relax and get away from the city, we will tend to think the other person has similar reasons. But when asked why a feral cat chases a mouse, it is unlikely that we simulate pawing in the underbrush or project our own ways of thinking on the cat (Nichols & Stich, 2003). Rather we rely on common knowledge that feral cats chase mice for food. This difference in mind reading strategy is reflected at the neural level. Mitchell (2009) reported that the medial prefrontal cortex is activated when people infer the mental states of similar others. This same area is implicated when people make inferences about themselves or engage in social versus nonsocial processing. It seems reasonable that knowledge about the self would be used comparatively to predict others. At the same time, research and thinking on theory of mind could be refined, expanded, and productively reorganized with an extended evolutionary perspective.

NEO-DARWINISM IN EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY Evolutionary approaches to social cognition (Simpson, Schaller, & Kenrick, 2006) and theory of mind (Givón & Malle, 2002; Nichols & Stich, 2003) are hardly unique. They draw from a traditional genecentered perspective on evolution (e.g., Dawkins, 1976; Wilson, 1975) and a model of “Machiavellian intelligence” (Byrne & Whiten, 1988). This neo-Darwinian model proposes that the large brains of humans and other highly social primates evolved to enable social expertise— the ability to manipulate others in the social group through exploitation and tactical deception, which leads to an evolutionary “arms race” of manipulation and countermanipulation among potential free riders. The model presupposes a high level of biological self-interest and individualism.


According to such models in both psychology and biology, individual self-interest has felt more “natural” as a theoretical starting point than sociality (Allport, 1924). From this neo-Darwinian perspective, solitary living is considered to be the primal condition. Group life is viewed as costly, so, “Without some positive advantage to grouping, groups will naturally disperse as individuals revert to the logically more primitive state of a solitary existence” (Dunbar, 1989, p. 701). There are two points we wish to make about this claim of fundamental self-interest. First, Dunbar is correct, as far as the logic of population genetics goes. But from the perspective of the phenotype, and in particular, the human phenotype, which is our object of investigation, the logic falls short. Humans are trapped into group living, which is a solution to the free rider problem (Brewer & Caporael, 2006). They are constrained by their morphology (e.g., their lack of natural defenses such as deadly incisors or tough hides, their long period of infant helplessness, and their slow bipedal mode of locomotion) and their ecology (e.g., their mode of subsistence extraction in combination with the carrying capacity of their habitat). Thus, humans are obligately interdependent: they are unable to reproduce and survive to reproductive age without a group even in technologically advanced regions. Without dismissing the significance of individual self-interest in group life, the central problem for understanding the biology of social life is coordination. Second, the idea that people are motivated solely by their personal outcomes and behave more or less rationally in pursuit of their selfinterests is common throughout the human sciences as well as in biology (Caporael, Dawes, Orbell, & van de Kragt, 1989). The currency (genes, money, status, a good conscience, etc.) may change, but the structure of the assumption remains the same. This common assumption is drawn from folk psychology (cf., Kitcher, 1985); yet, it can be viewed as merely one aspect of human nature compared with many other possible ethnopsychologies (Henrich et al., 2005; Lillard, 1998). Obviously, humans can be self-interested, greedy, brutal, and profoundly dishonest, but a language of biology couched in metaphors of genetic selfishness and altruism increases confusion between folk psychological and scientific thinking, especially for theories of mind. The “gene’s eye view” of evolution is an impoverished view for the human case partly because it is too general. Genes are below the level of the organism, blind to the distinctions between social and asocial creatures. As Dawkins (1976) put it, organisms are survival machines and other survival machines are things that get in the way or can be exploited. They differ from rocks because they are inclined to hit back (p. 76). As a result, the same theory gets


applied to all species, oysters to humans, given what we know—or think that we know—about them. From a strict neo-Darwinian view, other minds are not at issue.

EVO-DEVO AND THE REPEATED ASSEMBLY OF CORE CONFIGURATIONS In adopting neo-Darwinism, psychologists poorly understood evo-devo. It is one of a number of extensions of evolutionary theory that share a view of biological phenomena as being hierarchically organized (e.g., DNA, cells, tissues, organisms, groups), and organisms as the result of various necessary genetic and epigenetic resources (Oyama, 1985; Griffiths & Gray, 1994). These include genes and a broad range of epigenetic factors that range from RNA to nutrition, language environments, and social roles, all of which have different temporal scales and cycles of replication. The implications of these assumptions are only now beginning to come under analysis (Caporael, 2003; Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Wimsatt & Griesemer, 2007). A theoretical perspective for human evo-devo requires an account of recurrence and a model about the selective domain. In the standard evolutionary psychology model, genes account for all recurrence, and the selective domain is hunter-gatherer groups in the Plio-Pleistocene. In the evo-devo model that we use, recurrence results from the repeated assembly of multiple resources (including cultural and artifactual resources). The selective domains for uniquely human capacities are core configurations of face-to-face groups that recur in daily life, in development, and plausibly in human evolutionary history. Unlike the neo-Darwinian view, which rejects development as significant for its program to understand genetic transmission (Dawkins, 1982), from an evo-devo perspective, the development of bodies is essential for understanding how evolution occurs (Amundson, 2005). A technical description of repeated assemblies is complicated but can be found in Caporael (2003). Briefly, repeated assemblies are characterized by recurrent relationships between an entity and its environment, heterogeneous resources, and hierarchical structural organization. For example, in the human case, mother–infant dyads are repeatedly assembled. “Having a mother” is a stable recurrent relationship between the infant and its caregiver. A variety of resources, including cultural beliefs about gender, genes, artifacts specialized for infants, and a speech environment contribute to phenotypic development. Some of these resources (e.g., genes, having a mother) are extremely stable— they are components that have persisted for eons. Other resources, such


as speaking a particular language, are still inherited, but are less persistent over time. Some components are generatively entrenched (Wimsatt, 2007), meaning that they have a long evolutionary history, occur early in children’s development, and are crucial because later processes are generated through the earlier ones. For example, infants who are deprived of a social environment through abuse or neglect are at risk for failing to develop abilities that depend on their earlier achievements. Caporael (1997) proposed that the face-to-face contexts of ancient foraging groups were the significant environment for the evolution of both group coordination and the mental systems that make coordination possible. Table 4.1 summarizes the broad outlines of this work. It proposes four face-to-face configurations—dyad, task group, band (or deme), and macroband (macrodeme)—organized as a nested hierarchy, or demic structure (Hull, 1988). The tasks listed are arguably characteristic of hunter-gatherers but have analogues in the activity patterns of modern peoples. For example, scientists frequently operate in core configurations of research groups (task groups), workshops (demes), and yearly association meetings (seasonal macrodemes). Groups (in the past and present) are not just aggregate of individuals but have recurrent Table 4.1 Core Configurations Core Configurationa

Group Size

Dyad

2

Task group

5

Deme (band)

30

Macrodeme (macroband)

300

a

Modal Tasks Sex, infant interaction with older children and adults Foraging, hunting, gathering, direct interface with habitat Movement from place to place, general processing and maintenance, work group coordination Seasonal gathering, exchange of individuals, resources, and information

Proper Function Microcoordination

Distributed cognition

Shared construction of reality (includes indigenous psychologies), identity Stabilizing and standardizing language

Core configurations are a joint function of both size and task. Except for dyads, the group size numbers should be considered as modal estimates in a range roughly plus or minus a third of this number.


structural-functional properties. The recurrence results from the persistent dynamic relations among bodily form, modal tasks, group size, and ecological constraints from one generation to the next. For example, a group of five strangers in an elevator is an aggregation of individuals. Should the elevator get stuck between floors, however, the group promptly becomes a core configuration (a result of their shared fate), distributing perception, memory, and problem-solving skills. The model sketched in Table 4.1 suggests an initial decomposition of functions as well as a dynamic large-grain or rough developmental sequence. Dyads would appear relevant to nonverbal forms of knowledge. Rhythmicity, gaze, pointing, and nodding might be examples for further investigation. Primates have a considerable repertoire of nonverbal signaling that facilitates complex behavior. Task groups of five or so people appear related to concrete understanding almost literally “on the ground,” and macrodemes (which are collections of related demes) of about 300 people appear related to an overall sense of symbolically created “groupishness” or identity. Demes seem to be in the middle, serving as a clearinghouse for the outputs of other structures. Once evolved, a particular function can be used for novel purposes and can be extended through technological means. In Table 4.1, we see that shared reality, indigenous psychologies (folk psychologies), and group identities are coordinative functions in demes. Demes are sufficiently flexible that they can function across macrodemes and even in largescale group structures. Complex social identity (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brewer & Roccas, 2001) illustrates this scalability: nested identities such as “actor,” “Californian,” and “American” contribute somewhat differently to commonly recognized American “indigenous” or folk psychology. Modern people also have cross-cutting identities enabling membership in multiple non-demic groups. Broadly speaking, we would expect human mental systems to correlate with the repeated assembly of core configurations. In the next section, we discuss how two functions in Table 4.1, microcoordination in dyads and folk psychology in the deme, might be related to an extended theory of mind.

BABY STEPS TOWARD A THEORY OF MIND The emerging view in theory of mind (ToM) is that both folk psychology and simulation are important. However, for both perspectives, ToM begins with a model of the adult endpoint—“the logical, symbolprocessing, modular computational machine” (Nelson, 2007, p. 52). Not surprisingly, minds are alienated or estranged from each other, just as they are in neo-Darwinian evolutionary psychology. From an initial


infantile state of estrangement, an individual must figure out how to anticipate the desires, intentions, and beliefs of others (Epley & Waytz, 2010). Consequently, research on the origins of mind is not organized around the infant as infant, but rather the infant as the precursor of the prototypical adult. Largely because it seems that there is no other option to explain the path from the alienated mind to the mind as computational machine, developmental ToM is organized around demonstrating complex, innate abilities in early infancy. Among these are the ability of infants to construct a mapping between adult bodies and their own (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977), or, in later childhood, the ability to understand another’s point of view as evidenced in the false-belief task—the subject of over 1,000 published papers between 2000 and 2004 (Dunn, 2008). These abilities are thought to be innate, present at birth or early maturing. Their evolutionary history is frankly imaginary: “Imagine the biological benefits to the first of our ancestors who developed the ability to make realistic guesses about the inner life of his rivals; to be able to picture what another was thinking about and planning to do next” (Humphrey, 1984, cited in Baron-Cohen, 1995, p. 21). An evo-devo approach can lead to different interpretations than those given in the usual accounts, yet one related enough to be considered an extended theory of mind. Broadly, human core configurations are repeatedly assembled in an developmental sequence. Infants develop microcoordination in dyads; as their coordination increases, they participate in workgroups (families), and through them, face-toface groups (extended networks of kin, family friends, etc.). Rather than just independence, human development is increasing interdependence. There is a broadening of the range of social interaction accompanied by increasing requirements for reciprocity, skills, memory, social judgment and so on. The perspective that we suggest below is sketchy, but it suggests some of the elements that would be relevant for new perspectives on ToM: Parents simulate desires and intentions on behalf of the infants, consonant with local variations of folk psychology. This simulation scaffolds infants into membership in the human community. We discuss parents simulating infant minds and then turn to folk psychology.

PARENTS SIMULATING MIND Newborns can only be in two settings. One is a dyadic setting where the newborn is being held, and the other is a solitary setting, when it is laid down. There may be activity of some sort around it, but its immature sensorimotor abilities are limiting for the newborn. Infants may


be held by older siblings or adults who are not the mother, but by and large, the main setting in the evolution and ontogeny of early infancy is the mother–infant dyad. The dyad is the most deeply entrenched core configuration; many repeated assemblies downstream depend on early development. The newborn infant bears minimal resemblance to the adult that it will become. Its brain has one third of the cortical surface area that it will have as an adult (Hill et al., 2010), and its visual acuity, contrast, and field of vision is considerably limited (Farzin, Rivera, & Whitney, 2010). Objectively, the newborn is strange, unhumanlike—its form is out of proportion, it makes funny noises, it has a distinctive smell, and its movements are jerky and uncoordinated. Remarkably, the infant is not seen objectively, least of all by its parents. This gap between the “objective” (or embodied) infant and the “subjective” (or enacted) infant merits research from embodied and evolutionary perspectives precisely because the objective infant seems to lie beyond the bounds of common folk psychology. Caregivers attribute a subjective life to infants, simulating desires and intentions on behalf of the newborn without regard for its initial limitations. Such attributions, of a theory of mind so to speak, appear essential to bringing the infant into a human community. Nursing is one of the first activities of the newborn infant. Babies suck in a burst–pause pattern that appears to be unique among mammals, which continuously suck without pause (Sroufe & Waters, 1976). The pause is something of a mystery: There is no physiological reason for pauses—the infant breathes and swallows as it sucks, there is no difference between bottle-fed and breast-fed infants in pausing, and although bursts of sucking get shorter as the infant gets full, the pause duration remains constant. There is no apparent function for pausing. Kaye and Wells (1980) undertook a naturalistic study of 52 mothers feeding their infants at 2 days and then 2 weeks old. Mothers explain the pauses by “mind reading.” Infants are initially described by their mothers as “involved” with nursing, but then they get “lazy,” “tired,” or “stop paying attention,” and thus stop sucking. So mothers begin to jiggle the babies to get their attention or to get them “back to work.” However, the conditional probabilities calculated in the microanalysis of the comparing bursts of sucking and pauses show that jiggling does not serve the mother’s intended goal. The infant does not start a burst of sucking until after the mother stops jiggling. There is no contingency between the initiation of jiggling and the infant beginning another round of sucking; not until the mother stops jiggling does the infant begin sucking again. Yet, mothers seem unaware that stopping jiggling leads to the next burst of sucking, or that they shorten their


jiggling over the next 2 weeks. Kaye and Wells argue that the endogenous rhythms and reflexes of the infant provide a framework for the temporal structure of turn-taking characteristic of dialogue (Kaye & Wells, 1980). The mother fits her behavior into the infant’s rhythms in order to enact the infant’s presumed autonomy. Hendriks-Jansen (1996) extended this analysis and applied it to other instances where the infant’s rhythms, reflexes, and emerging attention are exquisitely attuned to evoking the parent’s simulation of the future infant mind. Many other animals show abilities for highly structured turn-taking as in mating or display behavior, but these are highly fixed and cue bound. Human turn-taking requires enormous flexibility over a range of circumstances. Not only language, but music, dance, and nonverbal expression (overt and subtle) are involved in the coordination of meaning and action. As a result of natural selection, the infant scaffolds the parent’s attribution of the baby’s own future intentionality. The burst–pause–mother–jiggle pattern plays no functional role in feeding. Its function is the initiation of a deeply entrenched component that serves as another cycle in the repeated assembly of the next generation of a ToM. The mother’s specific interpretation (lazy boy, getting him back on the job, etc.) lies outside the activity patterns of turntaking and constitutes the first steps that will bootstrap the infant into a cultural world with a variety of tools, scripts, and models (Shore, 1996) that he will make his own. Between 6 and 12 months, there is considerable mimicry between adults and infants (Jones, 2007, 2009)—almost entirely on the part of adults, who are 7 to 10 times more likely to mimic infants than vice versa. Adults respond to the activity of the infants, inserting their own imitative behavior when the opportunity arises. As infants produce higher frequency and variability of behavior, mothers imitate them even more, and such games are often played with squeals of delight, maternal pride, and pleasure. Yet, mothers believe that their infants are imitating them, although the probability of matches between infant and mother behavior does not exceed chance expectations until around 12 months of age (Lewis & Rosenblum, 1974). This microanalysis approach to infant development appears to contradict the widespread agreement that infant imitation is innate and observable from birth (e.g., Meltzoff & Moore, 1983). A critical review of the literature (Ray & Heyes, 2011) indicates that newborns less than 6 weeks old do match tongue protrusion, but they do not imitate other actions. Moreover, newborns protrude their tongues to other stimuli including flashing lights or dangling toys, suggesting that a range of stimuli elicit tongue protrusion (Jones, 2009). Jones (2007) also challenged the


widespread view that imitation is innate in a longitudinal experiment with 162 infants tested at 2-month intervals between the ages of 6 and 20 months. In this unique study, which controlled for spontaneous production of gestures, parents were guided in modeling for their babies eight behaviors previously claimed to be imitated in early infancy. Jones found that 6-month-old infants failed to reproduce any of the gestures at appreciably above-chance levels and that four of the eight gestures failed to even be observed at this age. Over successive age levels, infants come to imitate the gestures, beginning with two gestures associated with sound (vocalizing “aah” and tapping the table at 8 and 12 months old, respectively). The remaining gestures emerge at different ages, but follow similar developmental trends. Notably, infants did not mimic tongue protrusions above the level of spontaneous tongue protrusions until they were 18 months old, which is consistent with the idea that above-chance matching of newborn tongue protrusion is an evolved activity pattern that scaffolds and stimulates adult attention. It drops out at 6 weeks and then appears again as “true imitation” at 18 months. Imitation does not appear as an innate whole. As we would expect from an evo-devo perspective, it seems that infants repeatedly assemble imitation, generation to generation, from different kinds of knowledge (e.g., the associations with sound, examination and experimentation with hands and other parts of the body) over a drawn out course of development scaffolded, initially just from endogenous activity such as tongue protrusion, mouth opening, and gaze, and later by smiles, mimicry, and motion, which is in turn elaborated, stimulated, elicited, and guided by adult imitation, attention, praise, and positive affect as adults simulate infant desires, intentions, and (later?) beliefs.

FOLK PSYCHOLOGY In philosophy’s theory of mind, the question about folk psychology is whether it can serve as an adequate scientific (or scientific-like) theory for the prediction of beliefs, desires, and intentions. Its origins, acquistion, or evolution are not germane to the discussion about its theoretical status. From the evo-devo perspective proposed here, folk psychology might be extended to dyadic interaction, but its primary function is the coordination of roles, activities, and identities within and between groups. (Coordination has been mistaken as a claim about altruism, cooperation, or prosociality. Its use is intended as a neutral descriptive term: even the most heinous violence between groups requires considerable coordination for attack and defense.) Coordination can take many forms, but social identity and moral obligations are two salient


ones that can evolve in face-to-face groups, yet also be extended to symbolic groups (Caporael, 2001; Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994). For lack of a better scenario, we assume that folk psychology evolved with language, symbolic artifacts, and narrative capacities and that a large part of activity in face-to-face group is negotiating status and obligations. However, a much better scientific understanding of folk psychology developmentally and cross-culturally is needed to narrow the scope of possibilities for hypothesizing its evolution. More as an organizing device than a claim, we suggest three main divisions for folk psychology. One is based on morphology—the physical form and functioning of the body—which we refer to as FP-E, or folk psychology (embodied). FP-E gives us the possibility of “sharing” other minds as well as translation across cultures despite fatal or perfidious misunderstandings. We have some sense of this point—shared bodily experience translated into psychological experience—from the crosscultural literature on expression and emotions (Ekman et al., 1987; Sauter, Eisner, Edman, & Scott, 2010). However, the connection of body and mind to folk psychology would be better illustrated by research on embodied cognition (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). For example, people create meaning in the weaving between interpersonal warmth and various sensory factors (e.g., holding warm coffee, Williams & Bargh, 2008, or standing in close proximity, IJzerman & Semin, 2010). Research on heuristics and biases, the illusion of conscious will, and even eyewitness testimony also fall into this category. The phenomenological experience of feeling warm toward another person or knowing the robber in a police lineup is real. Nevertheless, manipulations in the laboratory tell a different story, one that parallels the case of adult simulation of the infant’s mind, which also feels “real” when the newborn copies a tongue protrusion or fixes its gaze on its father. We suggest that the body and its sensorimotor features constitute a biological framework from which shared experience is constructed, narrated, negotiated, and realized and through which infants are endowed with the culturally understood “human nature” of its community. A second division of folk psychology that infants must eventually master is concerned with settings (FP- S) and includes at least two sorts of experiences. One is simply routinized institutional behavior, which has well-known scripts within a culture (Schank & Ableson, 1977). In many cultures, including American culture, much of public life (e.g., eating at a restaurant or going to the dentist) is governed by routines that we often begin learning in childhood and, as adults, watch as familiar routines change over time, usually in a plank-by-plank basis rather than as an overhaul of the entire ship of the institution. The


second type of experience relevant to FP-S involves activities and artifacts. If Seth goes to the basement and sees his daughter with a nail and a piece of wood in one hand and a hammer in the other, he assumes— almost always accurately—that she is going to pound the nail into the wood. Psychology has a rich literature, including patterns of errors, on attribution causes to dispositions rather than to perception–action dynamics in settings and situations that can cause and shape behavior (Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001). The last division we might call the private mind, or FP-P. This appears to get the bulk of attention for mind reading, although it can be just as easily cast as what’s left over from the various public ways that folk psychology is institutionalized. The assumption that private minds are fundamental seems to arise from adult experience. Infants have private worlds of experience, too, but their experience is constantly undergoing change as their sensorimotor systems and awareness are more finely attuned in development. Surely the difference in experience between adult and infant is far closer to the quandary of other minds than the adult experience of ordering dinner in a restaurant. The private experience of the infant may not lead in any continuous way to the private mind of the adult. Moreover, we might expect that the psychology of FP-P has undergone more dramatic changes over historical time than have other dimensions of folk psychology. For example, humans have moved from oral cultures of experience to the private consumption of experience in books.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS Too often, ToM research focuses on the capacities of the singular infant. The relationship that infants have with caregivers is often shadowed in the background. Our evo-devo approach directed attention to the embodied, situated activity of organisms in their environments. Infancy seems especially odd when it gets this sort of attention. The core configurations model suggested that dyads and demes/macrodemes would be important for an extended ToM. This was a fruitful exploration. From our evo-devo perspective, infancy looks like a fulcrum in the repeated assembly of human organisms and the first link in the reassembly of culture for a succeeding generation. Infants are born into a “community of other minds” (Nelson, 2007, p. 209). While it is hard to describe this from the point of view of the infant’s experience, it is just as difficult to claim that the infant mind is alienated, estranged, or faced with a quandary. Much of infancy seems to be about mutual activity in a shared social psychological space where the low-level


activity patterns of the infant such as pauses during nursing or tongue protrusion stimulate not only the attribution of desires and intentions but also talk, smiles, glee, persuasion, and other human engagement. That this engagement is deeply entrenched and crucial to the infant’s development is suggested by scientific reports of institutional deprivation in orphanages (Rutter et al., 2010). The infant’s mind is neither alienated nor is it capable of independently developing its own mind reading competence. We agree with Bruner’s (1990) description of folk psychology as an “instrument of culture,” and with his view that mind is constituted by culture; it is not a naked product of biology or physiological maturation as most theorists imply. Intentional states and experience are meaningful only through participation in the institutionalized meanings of culture. Folk psychology, Bruner writes, is “a set of more or less connected, more or less normative descriptions about how human beings ‘tick,’ what our own and other minds are like, what one can expect situated action to be like, what are possible modes of life, how one commits oneself to them, and so on. We learn our culture’s folk psychology early, learn it as we learn to use the very language we acquire and to conduct the interpersonal transactions required in communal life” (Bruner, 1990, p. 35). Parents, friends, and older children scaffold the active developing infant into this domain, starting with the location of birth, who helps in the birth, how the baby is wrapped, and when and how it is fed and by whom—and that is just the beginning. (One of us was startled to see during a hospital visit that the nursery had a group of newborns with pink bows Scotch taped to their heads. Without guessing or analysis, these were obviously the baby girls.) In considering the results of that “instrument of culture,” we divided folk psychology into three realms dealing with morphology, settings, and the private mind. We hope this expanded perspective encourages collaboration between biologists, historians, psychologists, and related disciplines to understand the evolution and development of these different types of folk wisdom. (An emerging precedent is the new center for the study of the history of emotions at the Max Planck Institute [http://www.mpib-berlin .mpg.de/en/forschung/GG/index.htm].) One of the apparent puzzles in our analysis is how task groups are involved in the evo-devo of ToM. While there are certainly lots of different reasons for people to gather in groups of four to six individuals, the evolutionary hypothesis for this configuration was posited as one that had direct contact with the habitat, with one of its functions being the distribution of cognition. Modal tasks might be interpreting animal


signs on the ground or data from an experiment. In other words, this core configuration is about problem solving. Bruner is helpful here as well. He argues that logicoscientific thought operates on distinctly different principles than folk psychology, which takes the form of narrative (Bruner, 1986). A well-formed argument is evaluated in terms of rules of logic, science, and mathematics; a narrative is evaluated in terms of its ability to make sense and reflect on human or human-like intentions and experience. Logical modes are expected to lead to factual understanding; narrative modes are expected to be life-like to provide different views of subjectivity. In our extension of the core configurations model to theory of mind, we focused on dyadic interaction between infants and their mothers. In this domain, recurrent aspects of morphology, settings, and issues of privacy are repeatedly assembled and shaped by culture. However, we also showed that other structures of interaction are involved. In particular, the mother (and later other family and community members) brings a set of culturally derived expectations to ongoing interactions with the infant. In addition to the familiar claim that the road from infancy to adulthood is one of increasing (bodily) independence, we suggest that it is also one of increasing (social) interdependence, as the infant is interactively drawn into a widening circle of core configurations.

REFERENCES Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Ames, D. R. (2004). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 340–353. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Birch, S. A. J., & Bloom, P. (2004). Understanding children’s and adults’ limitations in mental state reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 255–260. Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R. (2006). Social identity motives in evolutionary perspective. In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional, cultural influences (pp. 135–152). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Brewer, M. B., & Roccas, S. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal distinctiveness. In C. Sedikedes & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 219–237). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

70 • Linnda R. Caporael and Glenn D. Reeder Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1988). Machiavellian intelligence. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 276–298. Caporael, L. R. (2001). Parts and wholes: The evolutionary importance of groups. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, and collective self (pp. 241–258). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Caporael, L. R. (2003). Repeated assembly: Prospects for saying what we mean. In S. J. Scher & F. Rauscher (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology: Alternative approaches (pp. 71–89). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., & Van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1989). Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 683–739. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press. Dijksterhuis, A. (2010). Automaticity and the unconscious. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 498–541). New York: Wiley. Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1–40. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1989). Selfishness reexamined. Behavavioral and Brain Science, 12, 700–702. Dunn, J. D. (2008). Relationships and children’s discovery of mind. In U. Müller, J. I. M. Carpendale, N. Budwig, & B. Sokal (Eds.), Social life and social knowledge (pp. 171–182). New York: Erlbaum. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K. et al. (1987). Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 712–717. Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 498–541). New York: Wiley. Farzin, F., Rivera, S. M., & Whitney, D. (2010). Spatial resolution of conscious visual perception in infants. Psychological Science, 21, 1502–1509. doi:10.1177/0956797610382787 Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89–150). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740. Givón, T., & Malle, B. F. (2002). The evolution of language out of pre-language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. New York: Oxford University Press.


Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in culture and cognition (pp. 257–293). New York: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (1994). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 277–304. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hendriks-Jansen, H. (1996). Catching ourselves in the act: Situated activity, interactive emergence, evolution, and human thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. E. A. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855. Hill, J., Inder, T., Neil, J., Dierker, D., Harwell, J., & Van Essen, D. (2010). Similar patterns of cortical expansion during human development and evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(29), 13135–13140. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001229107. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653–670. IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. (2010). Temperature perceptions as a ground for social proximity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 867–873. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jones, S. S. (2007). Imitation in infancy: The development of mimicry. Psychological Science, 18(7), 593–599. Jones, S. S. (2009). The development of imitation in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 364, 2325–2335. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0045. Kaye, K., & Wells, A. J. (1980). Mothers’ jiggling and the burst-pause pattern in neonatal feeding. Infant Behavior and Development, 3, 29–46. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128. Kitcher, P. (1985). Vaulting ambition: Sociobiology and the quest for human nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lewis, M., & Rosenblum, L. A. (1974). The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley. Lillard, A. (1998). Ethnopsychologies: Cultural variations in theories of mind. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 3–32. Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23–48. Malle, B. F. (2002). The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution. In T. Givón & B. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 265–284). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

72 • Linnda R. Caporael and Glenn D. Reeder Malle, B. F., & Hodges, S. D. (2005). Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others. New York: Guilford Press. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by newborn infants. Science, 198, 75–78. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54, 702–709. Mitchell, J. P. (2009). Inferences about mental states. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, 364, 1309–1316. Morris, M. W., & Mason, M. F. (2009). Intentionality in intuitive versus analytic processing: Insights from social cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 58–65. Nelson, K. (2007). Young minds in social worlds: Experience, meaning, and memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading: An integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding of other minds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Oyama, S. (1985). The ontogeny of information. New York: Cambridge University Press. Penn, D. C., & Povinelli, D. J. (2007). On the lack of evidence that nonhuman animals possess anything remotely resembling a ‘theory of mind’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 731–744. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526. Prentice, D., Miller, D., & Lightdale, J. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493. Ray, E., & Heyes, C. (2011). Imitation in infancy: The wealth of the stimulus. Developmental Science, 14, 92–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00961.x. Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1993). Rapist or “regular guy”: Explanatory coherence in the construction of mental models about others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 526–541. Reeder, G. D. (2009a). Mindreading: Judgments about intentionality and motives in dispositional inference. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 1–18. Reeder, G. D. (2009b). Mindreading and dispositional inference: MIM revised and extended. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 73–83. Reeder, G. D., & Trafimow, D. (2005). Attributing motives to other people. In B. F. Malle and S. D. Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 106–123). New York: The Guilford Press. Rutter, M., Sonuga-Burke, E. J., Beckett, C., Castle, J., Kreppner, J., Kumsta, R. et al. (2010). Deprivation-Specific psychological patterns: Effects of institutional deprivation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 75(1).


Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S. K. (2010). Cross-Cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(6), 2408–2412. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908239106. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Simpson, J. A., Schaller, M., & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.). (2006). Evolution and social psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1976). The ontogenesis of smiling and laughter: A perspective on the organization of development in infancy. Psychological Review, 83(3), 173–189. Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93, 239–257. Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1159–1168. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-ofmind development: The truth about false belief. Child Develpoment, 72, 655–684. Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606–607. doi:10.1126/ science.1162548. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wimsatt, W. C., & Griesemer, J. R. (2007). Reproducing entrenchments to scaffold culture: The central role of development in cultural evolution. In R. Sansom & R. N. Brandon (Eds.), Integrating evolution and development (pp. 227–333). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (Eds.). (1984). Handbook of social cognition (Vols. 1–3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

II Social Identity and Intergroup Relations

5 SOCIAL IDENTITY COMPLEXITY Theoretical Implications for the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations Katharina Schmid and Miles Hewstone

Multiple-categorization approaches are receiving ever more attention in social psychological theory and research on intergroup relations. The basic premise underlying such approaches is that individuals typically belong to and identify with multiple social groups. Moreover, these approaches underline the notion that multiple social categories can become salient simultaneously, affording individuals the capacity to attend to and make judgments about others based on their multiple group memberships. This is, of course, not a new idea. Social psychologists have long recognized the importance of multiple categorization processes for understanding intergroup relations (see Crisp & Hewstone, 2007, for a detailed review), as have scholars in other fields (e.g., Murphy, 1957). What is new, however, is the notion advanced by Marilynn Brewer and colleagues that individuals differ in the way in which they incorporate their multiple group memberships into their sense of self. Individuals may thus perceive their multiple social categories in more or less complex and differentiated ways, based on the subjectively perceived interrelationships between their multiple in-group identities (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Importantly, the extent to which individuals differ in social identity complexity is said to have important consequences for intergroup perception and attitudes. The social identity complexity concept thus extends previous theorizing on multiple

77

78 • Katharina Schmid and Miles Hewstone

categorization processes in important ways since it focuses much more explicitly on multiple self-categorization processes than do other multiple categorization approaches. In this chapter, we describe the concept of social identity complexity and discuss its contribution to the social psychological understanding of multiple categorization processes, as well as its involvement in shaping intergroup relations. We begin with a brief definition of the theoretical concept, which we follow with a discussion of the merits of social identity complexity for understanding intergroup relations. We place this discussion of how and why social identity complexity tends to positively covary with intergroup perception and attitudes in the wider realm of social psychological theory and research on multiple categorization. We then move to a consideration of potential antecedents of social identity complexity. We focus on two determinants of social identity complexity in particular, the diversity of the social environment and one’s social experiences, and identity threat, especially distinctiveness threat. In so doing, we link four research areas covered by Marilynn Brewer in her distinguished career as a scholar of intergroup relations: intergroup contact, optimal distinctiveness, crossed categorization, and social identity complexity. We end by considering the applied relevance of social identity complexity and the extent to which it may be perceived as a means for improving intergroup relations and drawing some general conclusions.

COMPLEX MULTIPLE IN-GROUP PERCEPTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES FOR INTERGROUP RELATIONS Theory and research on multiple categorization rest on the premise that individuals are able to categorize self and others in terms of multiple social categories. It is assumed that multiple categories may become salient at the same time, whereby individuals are able to attend to and make use of these multiple categories simultaneously. The logical consequence of this fact is that individuals are afforded the cognitive capacity to perceive others in a more differentiated manner, and more often than not self-definition in terms of such multiple social categories is associated with more positive evaluation of out-groups (see Brewer, Ho, Lee, & Miller, 1987; see Crisp & Hewstone, 2007, for a detailed review). Research into crossed categorization, for example, highlights that many social categories are orthogonal and may crosscut each other. Hence, if two existing social categories are crossed to form a set of four new category combinations (i.e., a “double in-group,” a “double out-group,” and two partial “in-group and out-group” category combinations), it is

Social Identity Complexity • 79

assumed, and has been experimentally demonstrated, that individuals are able to perceive others in terms of these more differentiated category combinations (see, e.g., Crisp & Hewstone, 2000; for meta-analytic reviews, see Migdal, Hewstone, & Miller, 1998; Urban & Miller, 1998). Crossed categorization thus holds potential for the reduction of intergroup discrimination and aids in the generation of positive intergroup perceptions, albeit more typically so if certain conditions are met (see Urban & Miller, 1998, for an overview of moderators). Actual versus Perceived Category Overlap The starting point for Roccas and Brewer’s (2002) conceptualization of social identity complexity is similar to that of crossed categorization, namely that many social categories in the real world naturally cut across each other; in fact, they differ in the extent to which they do so. In other words, it is possible to perceive the many and varied social categories individuals belong to as differing in the extent to which they overlap. For example, since a large proportion of British people are Christian, there is relatively high overlap between these two social categories. But a relatively smaller proportion of British people are Jewish, thus reflecting relatively lower overlap. Moreover, one might assume that categories do not ever fully converge, unless, of course, they are nested entirely within a superordinate category. For example, even though most midwives are female, there are some males in this profession also. Yet since, for example, all Sunnis are Muslim, these particular social categories overlap completely, that is, they fully converge. These latter, fully convergent categories reflect, to some extent, the hierarchical nature of some social categories, whereby categories may be perceived as subordinate categories nested within a superordinate, common in-group. Such completely overlapping categories are considered (among others that do not fully overlap but are hierarchically ordered nonetheless) in the common in-group identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993) or the dual identity model (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). They are, however, of less relevance for a discussion of social identity complexity. What we have just portrayed are exemplars of actual or objective category overlap. Yet this actual overlap may, of course, not necessarily be mirrored in individuals’ perceived or subjective perceptions of overlap. Thus, there may, in fact, be considerable discrepancy between the actual and perceived overlap of categories. For example, while it is certainly the case that one can be black and Italian, and indeed there are a number of black Italians, racist supporters of the Italian club Juventus have abused the Inter Milan player Mario Balotelli with a chant that


“A negro cannot be Italian” (reported in The Observer, 13 December, 2009). This offensive chant clearly rejects the notion of overlap between the categories “black” and “Italian,” despite the fact that Balotelli was born in Italy and that he has been a star player in Italy’s under-21 national team. It is these subjective perceptions of category overlap, and to some extent the discrepancy between actual and perceived overlap, that are captured in the concept of social identity complexity. Social Identity Complexity Social identity complexity refers to the perceived interrelationships among individuals’ multiple social group memberships, that is, their multiple in-groups. Hence, it defines individuals’ more or less complex cognitive representations of their multiple social identities (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Individuals may thus perceive their multiple in-groups as either largely overlapping or not overlapping. In the case of overlapping in-groups, only individuals who share membership on the sum of these identities are regarded as fellow in-group members, while people who share none, or only a few, of these identities are regarded as out-group members. Alternatively, individuals may be aware of the potential nonoverlap between categories, and thus acknowledge that others do not always share in-group membership on all of these self-descriptive categories, that is, that not all their multiple in-groups overlap (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Although the former case reflects relatively lower and the latter case relatively higher social identity complexity, one should think of social identity complexity as being continuous, with variations in complexity ranging from low to high. Two basic requirements need to be met for an individual to be considered relatively high in social identity complexity. First, one needs to be aware of the existence of multiple categories, that is, one needs to be attuned to the fact that one’s multiple in-groups actually constitute distinct social categories. Second, one needs to recognize that since one’s multiple in-groups constitute distinct social categories they need not, indeed in most cases cannot, completely overlap. Individuals who perceive their multiple in-groups as constituting a relatively exclusive in-group, in which others are perceived as in-group members only if in-group membership is met on all convergent multiple category dimensions, fail to meet these basic requirements. To exemplify, if a female, Christian British student considers only her fellow students who are also female, Christian, and British as part of a largely convergent exclusive in-group, we may conclude that she is relatively lower in identity complexity than a similar student who is able to distinguish between these multiple in-groups.


Social identity complexity may be conceptually divided into two distinct but related subcomponents: overlap complexity and similarity complexity. Overlap complexity most readily relates to the examples of actual versus perceived overlap mentioned above. It thus refers to the perceived quantifiable boundaries between categories, that is, the subjective perception of actual overlap in numbers or proportions between different categories. Similarity complexity, on the other hand, refers more to the perceived similarity between categories, that is, to the perceived defining, prototypical or evaluative properties of categories. Similarity complexity, thus, concerns the perceived similarities or differences in meaning associated with multiple in-groups, for example, whether an individual perceives being a member of one particular in-group as meaning very much the same as being a member of another in-group. To illustrate, a New York Democrat might perceive high overlap between the categories “New Yorker” and “Democrat” (e.g., he or she thinks that most New Yorkers are Democrats), as well as high similarity between the two categories (e.g., he or she thinks that the typical New Yorker is very similar to the typical Democrat or that being a New Yorker means very much the same as being a Democrat). Consequently, we might regard this individual as being relatively low in both overlap and similarity complexity, that is, as low in social identity complexity in general. Conversely, an individual showing less perceived overlap and similarity would be characterized by relatively higher overlap and similarity complexity, respectively, that is, as relatively higher in social identity complexity. Social Identity Complexity and Out-Group Attitudes Brewer and colleagues have argued that social identity complexity should positively covary with out-group attitudes (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Roccas & Brewer, 2002), for reasons similar to those underlying the notion of crossed-categorization. Doise’s (1978) category differentiation model predicts that once social identity becomes salient, this gives rise to intergroup discrimination whereby intragroup differences are attenuated and intergroup differences accentuated. This process provides the cognitive basis for in-group bias to occur (see also Vanbeselaere, 1991). In the context of multiple crossed categories, this general tendency to minimize differences within but maximize differences between categories should be reduced or even eliminated, given that individuals rely on more complex category combinations. Moreover, when multiple categories are salient, individuals are thought to rely less on single in-groups for bolstering self-evaluation and self-esteem


(see Vanbeselaere, 1991) or satisfying opposing needs for assimilation and differentiation (Brewer, 1991; see also Leonardelli, Pickett, Joseph, & Hess, Chapter 6, this book; we return to a more detailed description of optimal distinctiveness theory at a later point in this chapter). Moreover, when individuals rely less on a single category, the likelihood for the occurrence of intergroup discrimination is lower, while the likelihood for positive intergroup attitudes becomes greater. Since social identity complexity refers to multiple crosscutting identity structures and seeks to describe individuals’ subjective varying perceptions of such crosscutting categories, one may assume that a similar logic applies. If individuals are able to perceive their multiple in-groups in a less exclusive, but more differentiated and complex manner, they should also be able to recognize the complexity surrounding others’ multiple category memberships. In short, individuals high in social identity complexity should be aware of the fact that others may be ingroup members on some dimensions, but out-group members on others. This heightened cognitive complexity should then manifest itself in more positive intergroup perceptions and attitudes. Despite its relatively recent introduction to social psychological theory, the notion that social identity complexity tends to be positively associated with out-group attitudes has already accrued consistent empirical support in the few studies that have been conducted to date. In a number of preliminary studies in the United States and Israel, Roccas and Brewer (2002) asked samples of American and Israeli university students to rate the perceived overlap and perceived similarity between a number of predefined groups (for U.S. students, the categories used were white, American, college students, and religious denomination; for Israeli students, the categories used were secular, Israeli, college students, and Jewish). In the U.S. sample, the authors found that individuals who were higher on overlap complexity also scored significantly higher on measures of tolerance toward racial or religious out-groups. The nature of the relationship between similarity complexity and outgroup tolerance was similar, yet did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, in the Israeli sample, the authors found that both overlap and similarity complexity were significantly positively associated with willingness to engage in and acceptability of contact with immigrants from the former Soviet Union. In a further study involving 210 Ohio citizens, Brewer and Pierce (2005) found social identity complexity (measured by means of an overlap complexity measure) to be significantly associated with a range of social attitudes and tolerance measures, including, for example, greater support for multiculturalism and affirmative action and feeling thermometer ratings of specific out-groups.


With regard to our own research program, we carried out two survey studies that allowed us to examine the relationship between social identity complexity and out-group attitudes in Northern Ireland (Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, & Hughes, 2009), a setting in which categorization and identification processes are pivotal to the dynamics of conflict. Although the conflict in Northern Ireland is, broadly speaking, a conflict between those who wish to see Northern Ireland united with the Republic of Ireland (predominantly Catholics) and those who want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom (predominantly Protestants; Moxon-Browne, 1991), it is often described as a conflict between the Catholic and Protestant communities. Although there remains extensive segregation between these communities, they are more accurately referred to as ethnopolitical than religious groupings. Moreover, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland readily identify with being Catholic or Protestant, for which reason the typical focal categories are those surrounding ethnopolitical group membership. There does exist, however, a range of national (British or Irish) categories, that are also commonly endorsed as selfdescriptive, and that play an equally central role in the conflict (see, e.g., Trew & Benson, 1996). Thus, there is room to explore the notion of social identity complexity in this context. In our first study, involving a sample of 221 students at two Northern Irish universities, we confirmed a positive relationship between similarity complexity and tolerance and a negative relationship between similarity complexity and in-group bias. Our second study, based on a sample of 1,948 adult respondents, also yielded a negative relationship between both similarity and overlap complexity and in-group bias, providing further support for the hypothesized relationship between social identity complexity and out-group attitudes, as put forward by Roccas and Brewer (2002). Social identity complexity has also been found to correlate not only with explicit but also with implicit attitude measures. Miller, Brewer, and Arbuckle (2009) found that overlap complexity correlated significantly with scores derived from the affect misattribution procedure (see also Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005). It is especially important to keep in mind that social identity complexity pertains much more explicitly to multiple self-categorization than does the crossed-categorization approach, or indeed most other research into multiple categorization, which focuses more on multiple categorization of others in functional relation to the in-group. To clarify, most multiple categorization perspectives seek to explain changes in intergroup differentiation by making salient both individuals’ and out-group members’ multiple category memberships and/or attuning


them to the shared category memberships of the in-group and the out-group. Positive covariation between multiple categorization and out-group attitudes is, thus, limited to the in-group versus out-group categories under investigation. Social identity complexity, however, limits its focus to multiple selfcategorization of individuals, and therein, we believe, lays its strength in aiding understanding of intergroup phenomena. It is assumed that cognitive complexity surrounding one’s own multiple in-groups should in and of itself evoke more differentiated intergroup perceptions. Importantly, such more differentiated intergroup perceptions should not only be limited to the corresponding out-group categories (although they are likely to be stronger for these). In other words, social identity complexity is thought to be associated with greater tolerance more generally, and not only in relation to the categories in question. A striking example of this can be found in Brewer and Pierce’s study (2005), in which they measured social identity complexity with regard to three of their respondents’ self-chosen categories and included “American” as a fourth category for all respondents. They obtained significant relationships between social identity complexity and a variety of social attitudes relating to race and religion, even when removing the category “American” from some analyses, and even for individuals who did not include race and/or religion among their three most important social categories. Thus, one may assume that mere cognitive awareness of the complexity and nonoverlapping nature of one’s own social categories translates into greater awareness of the complexity of the social world more generally.

ANTECEDENTS OF SOCIAL IDENTITY COMPLEXITY Naturally, most individuals will be more or less aware of the actual overlap between the multiple categories they belong to. Actual category overlap will thus be, to some extent, predictive of social identity complexity, yet primarily so for the overlap complexity component of social identity complexity. Those individuals who identify with categories that are already characterized by a relatively high degree of actual overlap are, thus, likely to have relatively lower overlap complexity scores than will individuals whose important categories show considerably less actual overlap. For example, when seeking to assess overlap complexity based on self-categorized nationality and religion, Bangladeshi Muslims are likely to yield lower overlap complexity scores at an absolute level than German Muslims, based on the simple fact that the vast majority of people of Bangladeshi background are Muslim, whereas a


tiny minority of German people is Muslim. Thus, one needs to keep in mind potential differences in the nature of the categories used to assess social identity complexity, and the situational context in which they are placed. Hence, when seeking to make sense of social identity complexity involving somewhat more polarized social categories, or in more polarized social contexts, it may be necessary to examine both types of complexity, or even focus solely on similarity complexity. In our research conducted in Northern Ireland, a prototypical polarized society, we sought to explore social identity complexity surrounding religious and national identities. It is generally assumed that most Catholics in Northern Ireland self-categorize as Irish, while most Protestants self-categorize as British. Although these two categories do not fully converge, even in a context as polarized as this, the actual overlap between these two categories is relatively high, with less than a quarter of the population typically choosing crosscutting identities (see Schmid et al., 2010). Given this relatively high actual overlap between categories, we focused more on similarity complexity for the purpose of these studies, but nonetheless included a measure of overlap complexity alongside a similarity complexity measure in the second of these studies. Interestingly, sufficient variation in scores was observed not only for similarity but also for overlap complexity to yield a negative relationship with in-group bias. This is particularly interesting since it confirms the aforementioned discrepancy between actual and subjective overlap even in a context as starkly polarized as Northern Ireland, in which we might expect people to be very much attuned to the actual overlap between groups. One needs also to keep in mind that overlap complexity, more so than similarity complexity, can be assessed bidirectionally, yielding two potentially very different answers. Asking, for example, “How many Americans are Christian?” is very different from asking about the proportion of Christians who are American. Obviously, making such a distinction requires somewhat more cognitive effort on behalf of the individual. It is, thus, perhaps not surprising that researchers have found that various measures of cognitive style positively predict social identity complexity. For example, Miller et al. (2009) found that need for cognition (see Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984) and close-mindedness (a subcomponent of need for closure, see Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) were positively associated with social identity complexity. In a second study, Miller et al. (2009) found that respondents instructed to engage in cognitive elaboration (by getting respondents to think carefully about the actual overlap between categories) before rating the perceived overlap between their multiple identities yielded


higher overlap complexity scores than did respondents not instructed to do so. This result provides further support for the notion that cognitive style helps explain individual differences in social identity complexity. Roccas and Brewer (2002) have suggested that individual variations in social identity complexity may depend on a range of additional antecedents, such as values, mood, or stress. For example, they argue that since stress is known to deplete cognitive resources and lead to a narrowed focus of attention (Easterbrook, 1959), it may also lead to less complex and less differentiated multiple in-group perceptions. We devote the remainder of this chapter, however, to a discussion of two additional antecedents of social identity complexity: the diversity of one’s social environment or social experiences, and identity threat. We focus on these two potential antecedents in particular since they also pertain to two key social psychological theories of intergroup relations, intergroup contact theory and optimal distinctiveness theory. Both these theories have fundamentally shaped social psychological thinking on social identity and intergroup relations, and in combination with the newly advanced social identity complexity perspective, we believe, hold particular promise for advancing social psychological theory on intergroup relations.

SOCIAL DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY COMPLEXITY Brewer and Pierce (2005) have argued that exposure to socially diverse environments should be associated with greater social identity complexity. What reasoning underlies this claim? Being high in social identity complexity rests upon awareness and recognition of the nonoverlapping nature of social categories, either in meaning (as captured in similarity complexity) or in actual numbers or proportion (as captured in overlap complexity). One may thus assume that living, working, or socializing in environments that are more heterogeneous in terms of their social, ethnic, racial, or religious composition may automatically provide the basis for such increased awareness of the nonoverlapping nature of categories. In other words, being exposed to more complex social environments, involving crosscutting and diverse social groups, is likely to lead to more complex perceptions of one’s own multiple in-groups. Indeed, in a correlational study in the United States, Miller et al. (2009) found that people who reported living in residential areas with a greater proportion of residents from different ethnic backgrounds were characterized by higher overlap complexity.


One limitation of Miller et al.’s findings is that they rely on selfreported data, respondents’ subjective estimations, for their measure of contextual diversity. In two studies, one in Northern Ireland comparing ethnopolitically segregated with mixed neighborhoods (see Schmid et al., 2010) and one in England comparing neighborhoods of varying degrees of ethnic diversity (Schmid, Hewstone, & Al Ramiah, 2011), we sought to establish the impact of ethnoreligious diversity, as a macrolevel contextual phenomenon, on social identity complexity. In our Northern Irish sample, we deliberately sampled in ethnopolitically segregated and diverse areas (using census data) and observed that individuals living in ethnopolitically segregated areas had lower social identity complexity levels than individuals living in mixed neighborhoods (areas inhabited, to approximately equal proportions, by both Catholics and Protestants; see Schmid et al., 2010). However, due to the limited number of areas available to us in this study, we simply used a categorical comparison between the two types of areas, segregated and mixed, in this ethnopolitically-polarized context, Northern Ireland. In our second study that sought to examine the relationship between contextual diversity and social identity complexity, we deliberately sampled around 850 white British majority respondents from more than 200 different neighborhoods, characterized by varying degrees of ethnic minority proportion in England (again based on census records). We used multilevel modeling techniques to take account of the hierarchical nature of the data, and thus the nonindependence of observations since one may assume that individuals who live in the same neighborhood may be more similar to one another in their responses than to individuals living in other neighborhoods (similar methodological concerns apply when examining, e.g., students nested in classrooms or individuals within families, etc.; see, e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002, for an overview of hierarchical models). Our results showed that both the subjectively perceived, as well as the actual, degree of diversity, measured by the percentage of nonwhite British respondents (i.e., the ethnic minority proportion) in respondents’ neighborhood was associated with greater social identity complexity (Schmid et al., 2011). These studies thus empirically corroborate the theoretical claim by Brewer and Pierce (2005) that exposure to diverse social environments should be positively related with social identity complexity. Mere exposure to social diversity may, however, not always be entirely sufficient to prompt more complex multiple social identity structures. In other words, despite living, working, or socializing in seemingly diverse social environments, individuals may go about their daily lives in relatively more homogenous microenvironments. For


example, despite working in a large multinational company in London, a male white British lawyer may spend most of his time with other male white British lawyers. Lau and Murnighan (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; see also Lau & Murnighan, 2005) speak, for example, about so-called group fault lines that may develop in diverse organizational contexts, such as diverse work groups. They thus argue that diverse groups hold the potential for the emergence of particular subgroups, whereby individuals within a larger, more diverse context may align themselves along one or several unifying characteristics, demographic or otherwise, to form relatively smaller, more homogenous subgroups. Such fault lines are thought to vary in strength depending on the number of attributes along which they develop. If we return to our aforementioned example, we may thus imagine the occurrence of a relatively strong fault line defined by two subgroups of lawyers, male white British lawyers and female African American lawyers, respectively. Since three attributes (gender, race, and nationality) align to form a single dividing fault line, this fault line is thought to be relatively stronger than if each of the three attributes had formed three separate fault lines along gender, race, and nationality, respectively. In view of our discussion of social identity complexity, then, one may assume that such fault lines may result in less complex multiple identity structures. It thus becomes questionable whether social diversity, as a purely contextual, macrolevel phenomenon (based, e.g., on the number of different groups or the percentage of diverse others living in a contextual unit), is sufficient to explain variations in social identity complexity without taking into consideration individuals’ subjective experiences of their contextual diversity. Naturally, individuals need to be aware of, and subjectively experience, the diversity of their social environment in some form or other for the environmental context to influence their multiple self-perceptions. Diverse social settings should, then, be seen as opportunities for diverse social experiences and, importantly, for intergroup contact, but it is up to individuals to grasp these opportunities for them to impact on attitudes and other outcomes. Intergroup Contact Theory Since its inception in the 1940s and 1950s (Allport, 1954; Williams, 1947), intergroup contact theory has been one of the most commonly invoked social psychological approaches to explaining intergroup relations (see, e.g., Miller & Brewer, 1984). The basic notion of intergroup contact theory is that direct, face-to-face contact with individual out-group members may reduce negative and promote


positive out-group attitudes via processes of generalization of positive attitudes from the encountered individual(s) to the wider outgroup, especially if certain moderating conditions are met (see, e.g., Pettigrew, 1998). Widespread empirical support for intergroup contact theory has been accrued in many different contexts and under many different conditions. Most significantly, a more in-depth understanding of the extent to which different types of contact are effective, and when and how they operate has since been obtained (for a detailed review, see Brown & Hewstone, 2005; for meta-analytic support, see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Regarding types of contact, we now know that both the frequency and nature of direct contact is important for shaping intergroup relations, and that cross-group friendship is a particularly strong antecedent of positive intergroup relations (e.g., Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004). We also know that indirect, or extended, contact is also typically associated with positive intergroup effects (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). Indirect or extended contact refers to the (mere) knowledge of a fellow in-group member’s contact with out-group members (typically, but not necessarily, the fellow in-group members are ones to whom one is close, e.g., family members or friends; Wright et al., 1997; see Turner et al., 2007, for a review). The effects of extended contact are especially strong for individuals who have no direct contact themselves (see Christ et al., 2010). Regarding when contact is most effective, we know that contact is typically more strongly associated with more positive out-group attitudes when category memberships remain salient during contact (see Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Finally, we know that contact is associated with reduced prejudice via reduced intergroup anxiety and group-based threat perceptions (e.g., Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Tausch et al., 2007), and via increased empathy, perspective taking, and positive emotions (see e.g., Mackie & Smith, 2002).* We propose that one might think of intergroup contact as affecting not only more differentiated out-group perceptions, but also more differentiated in-group perceptions. That contact may be, to some extent, involved in shaping in-group perceptions, or even multiple in-group perceptions, has not received much research attention to date, and insufficiently so, we believe. This does not mean that there has been a lack of interest in the combined effects of intergroup contact and multiple categorization per se. In fact, there is a large body of empirical * We do not have space to elaborate on intergroup contact theory in detail within the realm of this chapter. For detailed reviews, see Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Hewstone, 2009.


research that examines (multiple) categorization as moderators of contact effects, that is, as conditions under which contact may be most effective in bringing about generalization of positive out-group attitudes. As such, it has been argued that for contact to be effective, it should be structured in ways that allow for a change in the cognitive representations of self and others, as well as more inclusive conditions for in-group membership. The exact nature of such changes in the structure of social categorization remains disputed, and different theoretical approaches have been put forward. To give a brief overview, in the context of single categorizations, Brewer and Miller’s (1984) “decategorization” perspective argues that the salience of categories should be reduced to allow for more personalized interactions, whereas the mutual differentiation model (Hewstone & Brown, 1986) argues that salience should be retained since personalized encounters may impede generalization of positive attitudes from the individual to the out-group at large. In the context of multiple categorization, the recategorization perspective (Gaertner et al., 1993) argues that intergroup contact should be maximally effective in yielding positive intergroup effects if the encountered individual is cognitively included in a common superordinate in-group, whereby contact may be most effective in predicting positive out-group attitudes if both subgroup and superordinate identities are kept salient (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Although we do not have space here to elaborate on these different models (but see, e.g., Brewer & Gaertner, 2001; Schmid & Hewstone, 2010), let it suffice to say that multiple categorization processes are centrally important to understanding the effects of contact on attitudes. Nonetheless, this line of research does little to explain if and how intergroup contact may directly impact multiple categorization processes, including in-group perceptions and, in particular, social identity complexity. Intergroup Contact and Social Identity Complexity Why might we expect intergroup contact to positively influence social identity complexity? Upon finding that contact with minority groups was related to less positive views of the in-group, Pettigrew (1997) argued that intergroup contact may attune individuals to the possibility that the in-group’s norms, customs, and lifestyles may not be the only acceptable ways to manage their social world and may prompt individuals to reassess their views of their in-group. He refers to this process as “deprovincialization.” Moreover, Gaertner, Dovidio, and Bachman (1996) have argued, and confirmed empirically, that


contact yields positive out-group differentiation effects by changing people’s cognitive representations of in-group and out-group from two separate subgroups to one common, more inclusive superordinate in-group. It is feasible to apply similar logic in the context of multiple categorization processes. Intergroup contact may thus also affect the cognitive representation of one’s multiple in-groups by highlighting, via direct experience with diverse others, the complexity and nonoverlapping nature of social categories. Encountering diverse others, who may be in-group members on some categories (e.g., gender, profession), but out-group members on others (e.g., religion, ethnicity) should prompt individuals to engage in increased cognitive differentiation processes and thus positively affect social identity complexity. In our two studies in Northern Ireland, already referred to above, we confirmed such a positive relationship, revealing that positive intergroup contact with the ethnopolitical out-group was positively associated with similarity, as well as overlap complexity (Schmid et al., 2009). But it may not only be direct contact, that is, actual face-to-face contact with out-group members that may prompt higher social identity complexity. Brewer (2008) argues that even extended contact may play a role in affecting social identity complexity. According to Brewer, the awareness of other in-group members’ contact with out-group members should inevitably enhance awareness of the nonoverlapping nature of social categories, including one’s own. Since extended contact involves the knowledge of fellow in-group members’ contact with a diverse group of others (with whom the individual may not be friends him or herself), the recognition that not all of one’s acquaintances and friendship circles overlap should enhance awareness of the complexity of own and others’ multiple group memberships. Moreover, the nature of the relationship between intergroup contact and social identity complexity is such that contact may exert positive effects on attitudes as a consequence of changing people’s multiple in-group perceptions, in particular their social identity complexity. Thus, social identity complexity may be thought of as an important potential mediator of contact effects on attitudes, whereby the change in cognitive representation of the in-group may help explain how contact can positively influence out-group attitudes. In our two recent studies in Northern Ireland, we also tested whether the effects of direct contact on attitudes were mediated by social identity complexity (Schmid et al., 2009). Our results showed that contact with members of the ethnopolitical out-group was indeed associated with greater social identity complexity surrounding individuals’ religious and national


categories, which positively mediated the effects of contact on in-group bias and tolerance toward the ethnopolitical out-group. Social identity complexity may also be an important factor explaining why contact brings about so-called secondary transfer effects (Pettigrew, 2009). Secondary transfer effects describe situations in which contact with a member of one particular out-group (the “primary” out-group) has positive consequences for attitudes not only toward this group in general, but also towards other, even unrelated out-groups that were not involved in the initial contact situation (“secondary” out-groups). This phenomenon has been observed in a range of different contexts, including various European countries and the United States (see Pettigrew, 1997, 2009; Tausch et al., 2010). Pettigrew (1997) argued that such secondary transfer effects might occur as a result of deprovincialization, yet Tausch et al. (2010) reported consistent support for mediation via attitude generalization (i.e., a change in attitude towards the primary out-group) rather than via reduced identification with the in-group. Their studies, however, focused only on single in-group categories, and it is likely that Pettigrew’s notion of deprovincialization more readily speaks to multiple categorization processes, especially the concept of social identity complexity (see also Brewer, 2008). In a subsequent study, we examined the relationship between cross-group friendship and various out-group attitudes, including not only the primary ethnopolitical out-group but also attitudes toward immigrants and homosexuals, and what mediated these generalization effects across out-groups (Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, & Hughes, 2011). We found that social identity complexity positively mediated the effects of cross-group friendship with members of the primary out-group on attitudes toward the secondary out-groups. In other words, cross-group friendships were indirectly associated with more positive attitudes toward the other secondary out-groups, via higher social identity complexity.

IDENTITY THREAT, DISTINCTIVENESS, AND SOCIAL IDENTITY COMPLEXITY One may assume that in the context of multiple categorization, individuals depend less on a single category to satisfy the psychological need of “belonging” than they do in the context of single categorization. As a consequence, they should be less likely to polarize their loyalties along any specific in-group category, which then holds lower potential for intergroup tensions (see Brewer, 1993). This, of course, relies on the multiple categories considered being of relatively equal salience,


a precondition that may not always be given, especially in situations that give rise to threat perceptions surrounding identity and group membership. Situations characterized, for example, by large status differentials surrounding a single category may give rise to heightened threat perceptions among the respective minority status group, resulting in heightened salience of the threatened category compared to the multiple other categories involved. Perceptions of identity threat may also lead individuals to make use of less inclusive criteria for determining in-group membership along multiple categories (see Hewstone, Islam, & Judd, 1993). Thus, individuals who perceive high identity threat are likely to display more exclusive multiple categorization patterns than do individuals who perceive no or low threat to identity. Roccas and Brewer (2002) have advocated a similar relationship between identity threat and social identity complexity. They argue that threat perceptions surrounding a single in-group inevitably incur relatively higher category salience in comparison to one’s multiple other categories, and may also induce stress and deplete attentional resources. As a consequence, the threatened category acquires greater relevance for category-based self-definitions, increasing the likelihood for individuals to perceive their multiple in-groups in a more simplified, less differentiated way. In two experimental studies involving Israeli student samples, Roccas and Brewer (2002) manipulated threat perceptions by asking half the sample to respond to a set of items gauging the perceived accessibility of unconventional weapons in a possible future war with Iraq (the high threat condition), and compared these with the other half of the sample who responded to a set of items on nature-related issues (the low threat condition). The studies examined the effects of the threat manipulation on similarity complexity (Study 1) and overlap complexity (Study 2), as well as the effects of threat on stress-related mood. Both studies corroborated their predictions, namely that high threat would be associated with more simplified, less complex multiple in-group perceptions, as well as with higher stress-related mood. Threat perceptions also yielded significant effects on both types of social identity complexity over and above the effects of mood-related stress. Interestingly, the effect of threat on social identity complexity failed to reach statistical significance when the category implicated in the threat manipulation (“Israeli”) was removed from the social identity complexity measures, supporting the view that threat heightens the salience of the threatened category relative to the other categories the individual belongs to. The type of threat examined in these two studies is most akin to the conceptualization of realistic threat in Stephan


and Stephan’s integrated threat theory (Stephan and Stephan, 2000; Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, 2009), but one needs to keep in mind that identity- or group-based threats may take many different forms (see, e.g., Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006, for a review). One type of threat that is, in our opinion, of particular interest for a discussion of social identity complexity is threat to distinctiveness. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory and Threat to Distinctiveness Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991) advocates that individuals are driven by two opposing needs—a need for inclusion and assimilation and a need for differentiation and distinctiveness. These needs may differ across individuals and contexts. In order to reconcile these opposing needs, individuals are thought to self-categorize and identify with categories that are optimally distinct, that is, that are sufficiently inclusive to meet their needs for assimilation, but sufficiently exclusive to meet needs for distinctiveness (see Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010, for a detailed review; see also Leonardelli, Pickett, Joseph, & Hess, Chapter 6, this book). In its argumentation, optimal distinctiveness theory thus seeks to explain individuals’ motivation for self-definition in terms of, and identification with, social categories, highlighting that individuals are motivated to identify with categories that optimally balance their two opposing needs. Naturally, however, individuals striving for optimal distinctiveness does not end with identification in an optimally distinct group. Group boundaries may change, for example, and groups may become too inclusive, thus posing a threat to the individuals’ need for distinctiveness. Such threats to distinctiveness may, then again, have consequences for in-group perceptions. Thus, since high threats to distinctiveness may prompt a high need for distinctiveness, they should lead to stronger preferences for exclusive than inclusive identities (see Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002). Although optimal distinctiveness theory in its initial formulation pertains primarily to single categories, it is likely that similar principles apply in the context of multiple categories. In the context of a discussion of social identity complexity, the idea that need for distinctiveness, particularly when involving threats to distinctiveness, may predict social identity complexity is not only an interesting but also a theoretically relevant one. Social identity complexity pertains to the cognitive representation of one’s multiple in-group categories in more or less complex ways. Hence, if one’s need for distinctiveness is under threat, one may not, or not only, be inclined to seek greater exclusiveness surrounding the single category under threat but perhaps will hold more exclusive, simplified multiple in-group perceptions. In fact, in many instances, more simplified


multiple in-group perceptions are much more probable than a change of group membership or a redrawing of category boundaries, especially if group membership is stable and inclusiveness unlikely to be changed (e.g., ethnicity or gender) or if the category under threat is a valued one. Distinctiveness threat may thus be associated with more exclusive criteria for multiple in-group membership, that is, with lower social identity complexity. In our two Northern Irish studies already referred to above, we were able to confirm this hypothesis. We found that perceptions of distinctiveness threat surrounding ethnopolitical group membership were negatively associated with both similarity complexity (Studies 1 and 2) and overlap complexity (Study 2; Schmid et al., 2009). Given the relative novelty of the social identity complexity concept in social psychological theorizing and research, empirical evidence on the relationship between identity threat and social identity complexity is still relatively sparse. Although we may conclude that perceived threat to distinctiveness can be an antecedent of social identity complexity, much more empirical work is needed to confirm this relationship, also involving other types of threats. For example, it will be interesting to consider the extent to which threats to in-group power or status, or to values or morals may affect social identity complexity. It will also be interesting to explore differences between minority and majority status group members, for example, whether belonging to a numerical or devalued minority prompts more or less complex multiple identity structures. This question is also likely to be of relevance when seeking to draw conclusions on the aforementioned relationship between social diversity and social identity complexity. Hypothetically, it seems feasible that members of minority groups may have either relatively more or less complex identity structures. By virtue of belonging to a numerical minority, and thus having greater exposure to and potentially greater awareness of the nonoverlapping nature of categories, minority members may have higher social identity complexity. However, this may only be the case if the situation does not give rise to threat perceptions. In high-threat situations, minority group members may of course display more exclusive, simplified representations of their multiple groups, especially if they identify highly with the category under threat (relatedly, prior research has shown that members of numerical minority groups are more cognitively preoccupied with their group membership than are members of majority groups; Lücken & Simon, 2005). All of this remains conjecture at this early stage, however, thus underlining the need for future research to yield greater understanding of both the antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity.


SOCIAL IDENTITY COMPLEXITY AS A MEANS FOR IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Multiple categorization approaches are typically thought of as holding particular merit in their potential not only to further advance understanding of but also to improve intergroup relations by creating conditions under which positive out-group attitudes may be promoted. For example, the crossed categorization approach rests upon the premise that crossing two orthogonal categories reduces the salience of any one of these, and may thus lead to more differentiated out-group perceptions (see, e.g., Brewer, 2000, for a review). In addition, the common in-group identity model, and to some extent the dual identity model, holds that recategorization of individuals from two former subgroups to a common, superordinate in-group may also lead to more positive out-group attitudes (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). However, these multiple categorization approaches have some limitations as social interventions. These approaches rely largely on changing or restructuring people’s self-categorizations, and individuals may not wish to share, let alone merge, group membership with groups perceived as a threat; they also hold the risk of depriving individuals of valuable social categories (see, e.g., Brewer & Gaertner, 2001). Moreover, it is difficult to achieve changes in self-categorization, reduce the salience of categories, or get individuals to attend to the multiple category memberships of others in the real world (it is for this reason, perhaps, that most tests of these approaches have been conducted within the laboratory, using either existing or arbitrarily created social categories). By focusing much more explicitly on multiple self-categorization processes than do other multiple categorization approaches, social identity complexity seeks to explain variations in out-group perceptions only with regard to in-group categories that are central and important to individuals. Thus social identity complexity cannot be thought of as conducive to experimental manipulation involving arbitrary categories. Unlike other multiple categorization approaches, the concept of social identity complexity is inherently an individual difference variable. It is thus not so much an approach in the strictest sense but more of an explanatory concept underlying multiple categorization perspectives. We do not wish to imply, however, that the concept does little else than explain variations in out-group perception. On the contrary, we believe that since social identity complexity tends to positively covary with out-group attitudes, and since it is subject to situational and experiential determinants, the concept holds the potential for a much more valuable approach to promoting positive intergroup relations.


To elaborate, rather than manipulating social identity complexity per se, which would be not only unrealistic but also undesirable, focus should be placed on effecting change or variations in social identity complexity. For example, if we assume that exposure to and experience of diversity may positively influence social identity complexity, creating opportunities for experience of diversity seems crucial. To illustrate, if we find that children who are educated in relatively homogenous, polarized environments are relatively lower in social identity complexity than children taught in more heterogeneous, diverse educational contexts, seeking to diversify and desegregate social institutions may be one way in which more differentiated multiple in-group perceptions may be achieved. More importantly, however, strategies that seek to change variations in social identity complexity should not require individuals to change categorizations; they should merely seek to influence the way they think about their in-group memberships in a more complex, differentiated manner. Individuals need not thus forsake any valued identities they may hold (a key criticism surrounding the common in-group identity model, see Brewer & Gaertner, 2001), nor do they need to attend closely to others’ multiple group memberships (as is required in crossed-categorization approaches). Merely achieving variations in social identity complexity surrounding individuals’ multiple in-group categories may thus be sufficient to yield positive out-group variations. We believe that this makes social identity complexity not only a theoretically intriguing but also a critically important concept in understanding and improving intergroup relations. To conclude, the conceptualization of social identity complexity developed by Marilynn Brewer (and her colleagues) has significantly advanced understanding not only of multiple categorization processes per se but has also highlighted that the extent to which we perceive our multiple in-groups in more or less complex ways may have important consequences for how we perceive members of (multiple) out-groups. Moreover, the concept of social identity complexity theoretically advances existing social psychological theory of intergroup relations, especially theory and research on intergroup contact and optimal distinctiveness. This chapter has highlighted that diverse social experiences in the form of intergroup contact or need for and/or threat to distinctiveness may not only help explain variations in social identity complexity, but that social identity complexity may be a key mediating variable that helps explain how contact and distinctiveness needs and/or threat affect out-group attitudes. Marilynn Brewer and colleagues’ theorizing


and research on social identity complexity thus marks the emergence of a synergy between this and some of her other key research contributions to the social psychology of intergroup relations, namely intergroup contact, optimal distinctiveness, and crossed categorization. This makes the concept of social identity complexity an invaluable addition to the social psychological literature of intergroup relations, and one that is likely to spark considerable research interest in years to come.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Leverhulme Trust (Research Programme Grant on “Ethnoreligious diversity and social trust in residential and educational settings”; PI, Miles Hewstone) during the time in which this chapter was written.

REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: Effects of multiple social identities. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 165–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brewer, M. B. (2008). Deprovincialization. Social identity complexity and out-group acceptance. In U. Wagner, C. Tredoux, G. Finchilescu, & L. Tropp (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations (pp. 160–176). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behavior. In M. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup contact and social categorization. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell hand book of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 451–474). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Brewer, M. B., Ho, H. K., Lee, J. Y., & Miller, N. (1987). Social identity and social distance among Hong Kong school children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 156–165. Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and out-group tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428–437.


Brown, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–331). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Wagner, U., Voci, A., Hughes, J. et al. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Crosssectional and longitudinal impact on attitudes and attitude strength. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1662–1674. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2000). Crossed-categorization and intergroup bias: The moderating role of intergroup and affective context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 357–383. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163–254). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183–201. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common in-group identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common in-group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common in-group identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271–290. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis.’ In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Hewstone, M., Islam, M. R., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Models of crossedcategorization and intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 779–793. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitudes: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and fault lines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic fault lines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645–659.

100 • Katharina Schmid and Miles Hewstone Leonardelli, G. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social cognition and intergroup relations. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63-113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lücken, M., & Simon, B. (2005). Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 396–413. Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.). (2002). From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups. New York Psychology Press. Migdal, M. J., Hewstone, M., & Mullen, B. (1998). The effects of crossedcategorization on intergroup evaluations: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 303–324. Miller, K. P., Brewer, M., & Arbuckle, N. L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 79–94. Miller, N., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Moxon-Browne, E. (1991). National identity in Northern Ireland. In P. Stringer & G. Robinson (Eds.), Social attitudes in Northern Ireland (pp. 23–30). Belfast, UK: Blackstaff Press. Murphy, R. F. (1957). Intergroup hostility and social cohesion. American Anthropologist, 59, 1018–1035. Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277–293. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effects of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted out-groups? Social Psychology, 40, 55–65. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. T. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Pickett, C. L., Silver, M. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of in-group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546–558. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.


Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. Schmid, K., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Combined effects of intergroup contact and multiple categorization: Consequences for intergroup attitudes in diverse social contexts. In R. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 297–321). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Al Ramiah, A. (2011). Ethno-religious diversity and social identity complexity: A multi-level investigation. Manuscript in preparation. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat and out-group attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1085–1098. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2011). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Deprovincialization via social identity complexity. Manuscript in preparation. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Jenkins, R., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2010). Identities, groups and communities: The case of Northern Ireland. In M. Wetherell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), The Sage handbook of identities (pp. 455–475). London: Sage. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stephan, W., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Cairns, E., & Christ, O. (2007). Crosscommunity contact, perceived status differences and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland: The mediating roles of individual-level vs. Group level threats and the moderating role of social identification. Political Psychology, 28, 53–68. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. et al. (2010). Generalized effects of intergroup contact on attitudes towards uninvolved out-groups: Attitude generalization or in-group reappraisal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. Trew, K., & Benson, D. E. (1996). Dimensions of social identity in Northern Ireland. In G. M. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities. Social psychological analyses of social change (pp. 123–143). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Paolini, S., & Christ, O. (2007). Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 212–255). Hove, E. Sussex: Psychology Press. Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed-categorization effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 894–908.

102 • Katharina Schmid and Miles Hewstone Vanbeselaere, N. (1991). The different effects of simple and crossed categorizations: A result of the category differentiation process or of differential category salience? In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 560–578). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–62. Williams, R. M. Jr. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science Research Council. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.

6

OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS IN NESTED CATEGORIZATION CONTEXTS Moving From Dueling Identities to a Dual Identity Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, John E. Joseph, and Yanine D. Hess

A key feature of contemporary and classic theories of social identification is the idea that individuals can flexibly categorize themselves as members of various social groups (for recent reviews, see Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010; Yzerbyt & DeMoulin, 2010). When asked to respond to the statement “Who am I?” (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954), people often generate a lengthy list of groups that serve to define who they are. Although social identity researchers have recognized that a multiplicity of self-categories can exist for any single individual, theory and research has only recently addressed the interrelationships between multiple self-categories and the consequences that these relationships have for shaping social identification processes (Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Schmid & Hewstone, this volume) and intergroup relations (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Crisp, Hewstone, & Rubin, 2001; Lau & Murnighan, 1998, 2005; Schmid & Hewstone, this volume). Individuals’ representations of their identities can involve perceiving some groups as isolated from other groups while perceiving other sets of groups as being highly overlapping (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Of primary interest in this chapter are nested category contexts, where two categories are salient, but one category is perceived to be a subset of a larger superordinate category. For example, in academic contexts, 103

104 • Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, John E. Joseph

a person’s specific field (e.g., psychology) might be perceived as being nested within a broader discipline (e.g., the social sciences). We argue here that a fruitful avenue for research is to consider how social identity processes operate within specific identity structures. A hallmark of Marilynn Brewer’s prolific and illustrious research career is the creative and novel manner in which ideas, paradigms, and research traditions were (and continue to be) brought together to address important questions. In particular, Brewer (1979, 1991) maintains a long-standing interest in the motivational underpinnings of social identification and intergroup behavior and an interest in how social groups and identities are cognitively represented (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Thus, we felt it to be particularly fitting to use this Festschrift volume honoring Marilynn Brewer’s career as an outlet for examining the intersection between social identity processes and social identity structures. More specifically, our goal in this chapter is to apply optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991) to the specific context of “nested categorization,” that is, structures in which some social categories (subordinate categories) are nested within more inclusive (i.e., superordinate) ones (Figure 6.1). In this chapter, we briefly review optimal distinctiveness theory and its past applications to nested category contexts (Brewer, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg, 1999). Researchers in this field of study have proposed

Figure 6.1 A graphical depiction of a nested categorization context. Larger circles represent more inclusive social categories. This figure serves not only to characterize the context we study but also to honor Marilynn Brewer (Brewer, 1991), as it represents a figure closely associated with the original publication of optimal distinctiveness theory.

Optimal Distinctiveness in Nested Categorization Contexts • 105

that group members are more likely to identify with and differentiate their subgroup from other social categories as the superordinate category’s inclusiveness increases. Despite supportive evidence for this proposal, a full explanation for this effect has not been provided in the literature. In particular, it is unclear how group members determine the superordinate group’s level of inclusiveness, and we argue that this has important implications for group identification. Judgments of group inclusiveness are comparative in nature and are made in the context of other salient social categories. Thus, an individual could determine a superordinate group’s level of inclusiveness by comparing the superordinate group to a subgroup (a vertical category comparison). Alternatively, individuals could determine a superordinate group’s level of inclusiveness by comparing the superordinate group to other superordinate categories (a horizontal category comparison). Although both types of comparisons can ultimately lead to “dueling identities,” where group members identify more with the subgroup or the superordinate group, we argue that horizontal comparisons allow for the situation in which both the subgroup and the superordinate group are seen as optimally distinct. When both groups are judged to be at an optimal level of inclusiveness, a “dual identity”—where group members identify with both the superordinate group and the subgroup—may emerge (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989). In this chapter, we present data from our research laboratories that test these ideas and discuss the implications of this research for intergroup behavior and acculturation.

OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS THEORY The optimal distinctiveness model (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010) posits that human beings are characterized by two opposing needs. The first is a need for assimilation and inclusion, a desire for belonging that motivates immersion in social groups. The second is a need for differentiation from others that operates in opposition to the need for inclusion. As group membership becomes more and more inclusive, the need for inclusion is satisfied but the need for differentiation is activated; conversely, as inclusiveness decreases, the differentiation need is reduced but the need for inclusion is activated. These competing drives hold each other in check, assuring that interests at one level are not consistently sacrificed for interests at the other. Working together, these needs govern the relationship between the self-concept and membership in social groups. According to the model, the two opposing motives produce an emergent characteristic—the capacity for social


identification with distinctive groups that satisfy both needs simultaneously. Optimal identities are those that satisfy the need for inclusion within the in-group and simultaneously serve the need for differentiation through distinctions between the in-group and out-groups. Since the inception of optimal distinctiveness theory, a large and varied body of empirical research has accumulated in support of the theory’s predictions (Leonardelli et al., 2010), and more recent work has offered extensions of the core theory (Crano & Hemovich, this volume; Pickett, Smaldino, Sherman, & Schank, this volume; Schmid & Hewstone, this volume). This research demonstrates that individuals are more likely to identify with and prefer membership in moderately inclusive groups (e.g., Leonardelli & Brewer, 2001; Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002). The needs for inclusion and differentiation have also been shown to affect cognition such that individuals are able to strategically maintain or increase group distinctiveness or inclusiveness (e.g., Pickett & Brewer, 2001; Pickett, Bonner, & Coleman, 2002). Furthermore, this work reveals that intergroup behaviors can create or enhance intragroup inclusion and intergroup differentiation, as well as maintain membership in optimally distinct groups (Leonardelli & Brewer, 2001; Zhong, Phillips, Leonardelli, & Galinsky, 2008). Research supporting optimal distinctiveness theory has been conducted with real and minimal groups and has included both experimental manipulations (to allow for causal inference) and individual differences (to allow for spontaneous and naturalistic observation). This body of research provides a substantial degree of support for the theory’s predictions and for the theory’s utility as an explanatory framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In this chapter, we sought to explore the implications of optimal distinctiveness for group identification in nested categorization contexts.

OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS IN NESTED CATEGORIZATION CONTEXTS In this chapter, the term nested categorization contexts is used to refer to contexts where explicitly defined social categories exist and these categories are nested within more inclusive explicitly defined social categories. For example, being Asian American refers to simultaneous categorization in a relatively inclusive category (American) and a relatively exclusive or subordinate category (Asians within the United States). Similarly, the internal structure of organizations is often formally organized by nested categories (Scott & Davis, 2007), from the most inclusive (the organization as a category) to increasingly more exclusive ones (such as


functional areas like marketing, production, research and development, etc.).* Nested categorization contexts are thus defined by co-occurring memberships in relatively exclusive social categories that are positioned within more inclusive superordinate social categories. The focal goal of this chapter is to consider the degree to which individuals identify with memberships in superordinate and subordinate groups. To date, research has supported optimal distinctiveness theory’s prediction that group members are more likely to identify with and differentiate their more exclusive subgroups from other categories, particularly as the inclusiveness of the superordinate category increases (Brewer, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg, 1999). Specifically, according to optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli et al., 2010), individuals search for moderately inclusive group memberships, ones that allow for both inclusion and distinctiveness simultaneously. Both superordinate and subgroup categories are by definition inclusive, containing a group of individuals, but superordinate categories are necessarily associated with higher levels of inclusiveness than subordinate ones (Brewer, 1993). Thus, within a given nested categorization context and holding all else constant, individuals should be more likely to identify with the subgroup and less likely to identify with the superordinate group because subgroups will be perceived to be more optimally distinct than the superordinate category. This preference for subgroup identities should become more pronounced as the perceived inclusiveness of the superordinate category increases. Research by Hornsey and Hogg (1999) yielded evidence supporting this prediction. These researchers were interested in investigating nested categorization contexts, where individuals belong to subgroups nested within more inclusive superordinate groups. According to optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1993), the more inclusive superordinate groups are perceived to be, the more group members should be motivated to turn to the more exclusive subgroups within the superordinate by exhibiting greater identification with or favoritism for their subgroup. Hornsey and Hogg (1999) tested this prediction with University of Queensland students. These students were members of either the math/science or humanities faculty areas and were led to perceive their university as the superordinate group and their faculty area * It could be argued that all social categorization contexts are inherently nested, as increasingly more superordinate categories can be formed until individuals reach the level of humanity (Dovidio et al., 2009; Turner, 1987). However, our focus in this chapter is less on how optimal distinctiveness motives and group inclusiveness influence the formation of superordinate categories (when none are already recognized) and more on how they influence identification with salient nested social categories.


as their subgroup. Hornsey and Hogg (1999) first measured perceptions of superordinate inclusiveness to determine whether group members felt that the superordinate category was too inclusive. Participants then reported their level of subgroup identification and intergroup behavior. Analysis revealed that greater perceived superordinate group inclusiveness was associated with greater subgroup differentiation whereby subgroup members expressed a preference for their subgroup over the other subgroup. Interestingly, additional analyses revealed that this effect appeared to be nonlinear; when the superordinate group was perceived to be fairly distinctive (i.e., when analysis of superordinate inclusiveness was conducted with scores from the bottom half of the scale), no relation between superordinate inclusiveness and subgroup differentiation was observed. Rather, the positive relation between superordinate inclusiveness and subgroup differentiation was evident when the analysis was conducted with superordinate scores from only the top half of the scale. Thus, only when the superordinate category was perceived to be highly inclusive did group members exhibit higher levels of subgroup favoritism. This evidence is consistent with the notion that too much inclusiveness leads group members to preserve and retain the distinctiveness of their subgroup. The research by Hornsey and Hogg (1999) is consistent with the notion that the inclusiveness of the superordinate group affects the intergroup behaviors of the subgroup, where higher inclusiveness is associated with greater preference and in-group favoritism relative to another subgroup. Another way to conceptualize this particular prediction, and perhaps to generalize it, would be to consider group members’ preferences or identification with the subgroup relative to the superordinate category. When the superordinate category is highly inclusive, then categorization in and identification with the subgroup should be negatively correlated with identification with the superordinate category. Thinking about the prediction this way, nested categorization should yield what we call dueling identities, where simultaneous categorization into a highly inclusive superordinate category and a more exclusive subgroup leads individuals to identify with one social category more than the other. This prediction was tested recently. Leonardelli and Toh (2011) investigated relations between local employees and foreign coworkers within the same organization; in this context, the organization represented the superordinate group and the local employees and foreign coworkers represented subgroups nested within the organization. In their sample of local employees, Leonardelli and Toh asked participants to rate the degree to which they perceived local


employees and expatriate coworkers to be meaningful subgroup categories (e.g., “I consider expatriates as ‘one of them’ and host country national employees to be ‘one of us’”; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Greenland & Brown, 1999). In addition to this subgroup categorization measure, participants also completed a measure of organizational identity (e.g., “I feel strong ties with my organization”; α = .92; Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001). Although the inclusiveness of the superordinate category (i.e., the organization) was not measured, it was presumed that the superordinate category would be perceived as highly inclusive because it must be more inclusive than the subgroup. With this assumption in mind, the authors predicted that the local employees would exhibit dueling identities, that is, the more they perceived the local–foreign categories to reflect a meaningful difference among employees, the less they would identify with the organization. Consistent with this prediction, analysis revealed that the more local employees perceived local and foreign coworker categories to be meaningfully distinct, the less the employees identified with the organization as a whole (r = −.26). This effect is also consistent with other research in nested categorization contexts (e.g., Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin, & Pratto, 1997; Waldzus, Mummendey, Wenzel, & Boettcher, 2004); for example, the more the ethnic minorities in the United States identified with their ethnic group, the less they identified with the United States (Sidanius et al., 1997). Overall, evidence supports the notion that in nested categorization contexts, individuals gravitate to identify more with the subgroup than the superordinate group, and defend the subgroup when the superordinate category is more inclusive. Explaining the Phenomena: Source of Superordinate Inclusiveness As theory stipulates (Brewer, 1993) and evidence supports (Hornsey & Hogg, 1999), group members identify with and prefer the more exclusive subgroup particularly as the superordinate category’s inclusiveness increases. Moreover, group inclusiveness originates from social comparisons (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli et al., 2010), and, in particular, the size of one category relative to another. However, what has not been addressed, but has important implications for group identification in nested category contexts, is what social comparison is defining the superordinate category’s inclusiveness. We distinguish between two such comparisons: (1) vertical and (2) horizontal comparisons. Vertical comparisons refer to those conducted by comparing the subgroup to the superordinate category. By contrast, horizontal comparisons refer to those conducted by comparing a given group (subgroup

110 • Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, John E. Joseph Vertical comparison

Horizontal comparison

Subcomparison

Superordinate comparison

Figure 6.2 Vertical and horizontal comparison frames. In the vertical comparison illustration (on the left), group members compare their superordinate group with their subgroup (nested within the superordinate). In the horizontal comparison illustration (on the right), group members compare their subgroup and superordinate groups to comparisons at the same level of analysis.

or superordinate category) with social categories at the same level of categorization: subgroups are compared to other subgroups, and superordinate categories are compared to other superordinate categories. An illustration of these comparison processes (vertical and horizontal) is presented in Figure 6.2. These comparison processes have different implications for group identification in nested category contexts. If superordinate inclusiveness is defined primarily by vertical comparisons, then the subgroup is necessarily perceived to be more exclusive and the superordinate more inclusive because of the existing identity structure: the subgroup is nested within the superordinate group.* A social psychology area is necessarily more exclusive than the psychology department, and the larger the psychology department the more exclusive the subgroup (holding the subgroup’s absolute size constant). Thus, with vertical comparisons we predict that the more inclusive the superordinate group is perceived to be (and less inclusive the subgroup) the more we expect to see dueling identities, where subgroup identification is negatively related to superordinate identification. By contrast, superordinate categories could be differentiated from other superordinate social categories in what we term a horizontal comparison. From this point of view, both subgroup and superordinate identities are subject to social categorization at the same level of self-categorization, and it is this process of categorization that determines the perceived inclusiveness of the subgroup and the * It should be noted that in nested category contexts, we think the subgroup’s size necessarily depends on the superordinate size, as subgroups are defined as representing a proportion of the superordinate group. What we consider here is whether vertical comparisons are also the basis for determining the superordinate category’s size.


superordinate group separately. Although the subgroup’s inclusiveness is derived from comparisons with the rest of the superordinate group, the superordinate group’s inclusiveness is derived by differentiating it from comparable social category out-groups. For example, a psychology department’s inclusiveness could be derived from comparisons with departments of biology or sociology rather than from comparisons with the social psychology area. Consequently, if horizontal comparisons are engaged to define the inclusiveness of the superordinate group, it is possible that the subgroup and superordinate categories may both be perceived as optimally distinct and, under these conditions, we predict that individuals will be more likely to simultaneously identify with the subgroup and superordinate categories, that is, to adopt a dual identity. A dual identity refers to a state in which individuals simultaneously identify with membership in a subgroup as well as in a superordinate group. The dual identity concept was born out of the literature on intergroup contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2009; Gaertner et al., 1993) and combines the value that the maintenance of subgroups brings with the value that a more inclusive superordinate group brings to intergroup conflict reduction. The maintenance of subgroup boundaries allows individuals to value the differences that each group brings to the interaction (as described by the mutual intergroup differentiation model; Brown & Hewstone, 2005), and establishing a more inclusive group identity allows for cooperative interdependence (as described by the common in-group identity model; Gaertner et al., 1993). A dual identity would thus capitalize on both consequences and offer greater potential for conflict reduction. Consistent with such predictions, tests have supported the notion that a dual identity yields more favorable intergroup contact (e.g., Crisp, Stone, & Hall, 2006; González & Brown, 2003; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Richter, West, van Dick, & Dawson, 2006). With a dual identity in place, intergroup conflict can be more persistently reduced. Engaging a dual identity is what distinguishes the two explanations for superordinate inclusiveness. With vertical comparisons, one of the social categories—the subgroup or the superordinate—will necessarily be more optimally distinct relative to the other, thereby reinforcing an identity antagonism. By contrast, if a horizontal comparison determines the superordinate category’s inclusiveness, a dual identity can be established, where both categories could be optimally distinct and thereby engage a dual identity. Understanding the conditions under which a dual identity is likely to manifest thus has great value in terms of identifying the conditions under which conflict can be reduced and cooperation encouraged between groups. Nested categorization contexts offer a social


identity structure that allows for the implementation of a dual identity. Furthermore, we think it possible that a dual identity can be engaged by a group’s optimal distinctiveness. Given that a social category’s inclusiveness is derived from differentiation from comparable out-groups, individuals will be most likely to identify with the subgroup and the superordinate group simultaneously to the extent that both are perceived to be moderately inclusive relative to comparable out-groups.

DUAL IDENTITY CAN ORIGINATE FROM OPTIMALLY DISTINCT GROUP MEMBERSHIPS This prediction was recently tested. As noted in the section “Explaining the Phenomena: Source of Superordinate Inclusiveness,” simultaneous identification with subordinate and superordinate group identities should occur when both groups are seen as satisfying individuals’ needs for inclusion and differentiation. As part of a larger research study, Pickett and Hess (2009) were able to examine this hypothesis among a sample (N = 292) of first- and second-generation immigrants to the United States. These immigrants were students at a large public university in California and the majority of the sample was Asian American, that is, students who themselves or whose parents had emigrated from countries such as China, Korea, Vietnam, or the Philippines. Another substantial proportion of the sample was Mexican American. Thus, in the context in which this study was conducted (in the United States), the superordinate group identity of the study participants was American and the subgroup was participants’ ethnic identities based on their country of origin (e.g., Chinese within America). In this study, participants were asked to consider both their American identity and their ethnic identity and provide ratings of the extent to which each identity satisfied their needs for inclusion and differentiation. For example, to assess the satisfaction of the need for differentiation, participants were asked to indicate their agreement with the statement, “My American [ethnic] identity gives me a sense of being different from other people.” Satisfaction of the need for inclusion was assessed by asking participants how “included” and “connected” they felt in relation to other members of the two (American and ethnic) groups. Levels of superordinate and subordinate group identification were measured by having participants complete a multi-item group identification scale for both their American and ethnic identities. As predicted by optimal distinctiveness theory, simultaneous regression analyses with inclusion and differentiation need satisfaction as predictors of group identification revealed that the two need satisfaction

Optimal Distinctiveness in Nested Categorization Contexts • 113 Table 6.1 Superordinate Group and Subgroup Identification Levels as Predicted by Inclusion and Differentiation Needs Satisfaction Scale

Beta

Predicting Superordinate Group Identification Superordinate group inclusion .38 Superordinate group differentiation .08

p Value .001 .067

Predicting Subgroup Identification Subgroup inclusion Subgroup differentiation

.27 .14

.001 .005

Source: Pickett, C. L., & Hess, Y. D. (2009). [Identifying the predictors of U.S. national identification and allegiance]. Unpublished raw data.

measures were independent predictors of group identification for both participants’ American identity and their ethnic identity (see Table 6.1). In other words, identification with both the superordinate group and the subgroups increased to the extent that each group was seen as satisfying the needs for inclusion and differentiation. In addition, indices of optimal distinctiveness were computed for the superordinate group and the participants’ subgroups by summing participants’ ratings of inclusion and differentiation need satisfaction for the two groups. Values on these indices were higher to the extent that participants viewed their superordinate group and their subordinate group as satisfying the needs for inclusion and differentiation. As shown in Table 6.2, the more optimally distinct participants perceived the superordinate group to be, the more they identified with both the superordinate group and the subgroup. Subgroup optimal distinctiveness only predicted subgroup identification. Finally, in this sample, subgroup identification and superordinate group identification were significantly positively related (r = .24, p < .01). However, the magnitude of this correlation varied depending on the optimal distinctiveness of the superordinate group. Among those participants who perceived the superordinate group to be less optimally distinct (based on a median split of the index of superordinate group optimal distinctiveness), the relation between superordinate group identification and subgroup identification was not significant (r = .06). By contrast, among those participants who perceived the superordinate group to be more optimally distinct, superordinate group identification and subgroup identification were positively related (r = .31, p < .01). These data support the proposal that dual identification (identification with both the superordinate group and the subgroup) is more likely to occur when the superordinate group is perceived to be optimally distinct.

114 • Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, John E. Joseph Table 6.2 Zero-Order Correlations between Superordinate Group and Subgroup Optimal Distinctiveness and Superordinate Group and Subgroup Identification Superordinate Subgroup Superordinate Group Optimal Optimal Group Subgroup Distinctiveness Distinctiveness Identification Identification R Superordinate group optimal Sig. distinctiveness R Subgroup optimal Sig. distinctiveness R Superordinate group Sig. identification

1

.149a

.592b

.123a

.014

.000

.042

1

−.004 .942

.619b .000

1

.244b .000

Source: Pickett, C. L., & Hess, Y. D. (2009). [Identifying the predictors of U.S. national identification and allegiance]. Unpublished raw data. a Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). b Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

In summary, the preceding analyses provide support for the idea that the needs for inclusion and differentiation independently drive identification with superordinate and subordinate groups positioned within a nested structure. Of interest, subgroup identification was not shown to be antagonistic with superordinate group identification, particularly when both groups were seen as being optimally distinct. Another study investigated whether optimal distinctiveness and need arousal could predict the conditions under which group members perceive subgroup and superordinate categories to be dueling identities versus a dual identity (Leonardelli & Joseph, 2009). To that end, Leonardelli and Joseph (2009) selected a natural nested categorization context, one with intergroup differences among superordinate categories. In this study, participants were students representing different business schools at a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) MBA conference. These MBA students were also members of their business schools’ LGBT student clubs. Thus, the business schools represented the superordinate social category, and the LGBT student clubs represented the subgroup. In this context, it was expected that the superordinate group would be moderately inclusive, given the widespread representation of different business schools at the conference. The goal of the study was to determine under what conditions participants would simultaneously identify with the superordinate group (the business school) and the subgroup (their business schools’ LBGT clubs). In prior applications


of optimal distinctiveness to nested categorization contexts (Brewer, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg, 1999), group members exhibited a preference for their subgroup over the superordinate group. However, in a nested category context, it is also possible for individuals to prefer the superordinate group over the subgroup. This may occur when the superordinate group is perceived to be optimally distinct, but the subgroup is not (i.e., it is perceived to be too exclusive). The study sought to test whether greater identification with the superordinate group over the subgroup would occur when the subgroup was perceived to be overly exclusive, and whether greater subgroup inclusiveness would allow for group members to simultaneously identify with their superordinate group (business school) and with their subgroup (their school’s LGBT club). Leonardelli and Joseph (2009) predicted that dueling identities would occur when the subgroup was extremely small, but that as the subgroup’s inclusiveness increased, group members would be more likely to identify with the subgroup and the superordinate group to similar degrees. Finally, to make this a particularly strong test of the prediction and allow for greater predictive validity of optimal distinctiveness theory, the researchers also experimentally manipulated the needs for inclusion and differentiation. It was predicted that when the need for inclusion is activated, group members are particularly likely to identify more with the superordinate group than with the subgroup, but as the subgroup’s inclusiveness increases participants are just as likely to identify with the subgroup as the superordinate group. By contrast, under the need for differentiation even extremely small subgroups should be perceived as a source of distinctiveness, and thus group members should be likely to identify with the superordinate and subgroup categories, regardless of how exclusive the subgroup is perceived to be. The researchers thus expected a three-way interaction between need state (inclusion, differentiation), the subgroup’s relative size, and identity type (subgroup, superordinate) to predict identity scores. Specifically, identity antagonism would occur—where individuals identify more with the superordinate group than the subgroup—when the subgroup’s size was extremely small and the need for inclusion was aroused. Otherwise, individuals were expected to identify to similar degrees with their subgroup and superordinate group categories (thereby reporting a dual identity). Upon agreeing to participate, participants were randomly assigned to read a paragraph intended to arouse their need for inclusion or differentiation using a standard procedure (e.g., Brewer, Manzi, & Shaw, 1993). Specifically, participants were asked to complete the survey because they are unique individuals different from the typical MBA student population


(need for inclusion) or they represent the typical MBA student (need for differentiation). Participants then estimated the percentage of students within their business school that belong to their school’s LGBT club; scores ranged from 1% to 15%. Finally, they rated the degree to which they identified with their business school, using Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) identity subscale of the collective self-esteem scale, and then completed the same measure with reference to their school’s LGBT club. The study thus consisted of a need state (inclusion, differentiation) × subgroup size (continuous) × identity type (superordinate, subgroup) mixed design. Analysis of identity scores revealed a marginally significant threeway interaction. Mean subgroup and superordinate identity scores were calculated using the equation generated from the general linear model at 1 standard deviation (SD) below and above the mean of subgroup size measure within the need for inclusion and need for differentiation conditions. These mean scores are presented in Table 6.3. Additional analysis revealed that when the need for inclusion was aroused, individuals were more likely to identify with the superordinate group than the subgroup when the subgroup was extremely small. However, the differences between superordinate group and subgroup identity were not significant when the subgroup was moderately small or when the need for differentiation was aroused. Altogether, these data support the notion that individuals can simultaneously identify with the subgroup and the superordinate group. Furthermore, supplementary analyses revealed that whereas there was a negative trend for the correlation between subgroup and superordinate identity when the need for inclusion was aroused (r = −.30), consistent with the notion that there was an antagonism between the two identities, there was a positive relation between subgroup and superordinate identity scores when the need for differentiation was aroused (r = .46). Table 6.3 Mean Identity Scores by Need Arousal (Inclusion, Differentiation) × Subgroup Size (Continuous) × Identity Type (Superordinate, Subordinate) Inclusion Need Extremely Small (–1SD) Superordinate group identity Subgroup identity

Differentiation Need

Moderately Extremely Moderately Small (+1SD) Small (–1SD) Small (+1SD)

4.83

4.13

4.36

4.27

3.20

4.38

4.26

4.01

Source: Leonardelli, G. J., & Joseph, J. E. (2009). [Nested identities by need state and subgroup size.] Unpublished raw data. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Canada.


This study supports two conclusions: First, the evidence supports the notion that individuals will at times prefer to identify with the superordinate group than the subgroup as a function of subgroup and superordinate group inclusiveness and needs for inclusion and differentiation. Second, it systematically supports the notion that individuals are likely to engage a dual identity when individuals see both of the nested categories as favorable sources of optimal distinctiveness.

IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, we have considered how the needs for inclusion and differentiation may influence group identification in nested category contexts. The conditions under which dueling identities versus a dual identity might emerge offer novel insights into the motivational processes that underlie individuals’ preferences for superordinate group and subordinate group identities. In the following subsections, we consider the implications of these hypotheses for two specific social psychological phenomena: (1) prejudice and discrimination in intergroup contexts and (2) cultural assimilation. Intergroup Prejudice and Discrimination As a potential solution to the problem of intergroup hostility, discrimination, and prejudice, social psychologists theorize that recategorization of in-group and out-group members within a superordinate category may lead to more harmonious intergroup relations. For example, according to the common in-group identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1993), perceiving out-group members as part of a larger group to which the in-group also belongs can reduce bias because the benefits of in-group favoritism are extended to those out-group members. In other words, intergroup attitudes should shift because people are motivated to perceive members of the in-group positively. Of importance, proponents of the common in-group identity model and others (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2009) argue that recategorization in the form of a dual identity, in which superordinate and subgroup identities are both salient, can reap the benefits of superordinate identity without requiring groups to forsake valued subgroup identities (e.g., racial and ethnic identities). However, as we noted in “Explaining the Phenomena: Source of Superordinate Inclusiveness,” dual identity will depend, in part, on how well the superordinate and subgroup identities meet group members’ needs for inclusion and differentiation. If the superordinate category is perceived by group members as being too inclusive, then resistance to


recategorization may occur. This may be particularly true among individuals who have a high need for differentiation. Similarly, subgroup identities that are perceived to be overly exclusive may be unappealing because they fail to satisfy group members’ needs for inclusion. Thus, the ideal circumstances for fostering positive intergroup attitudes via recategorization may be those in which both the subordinate and superordinate identities are able to satisfy the needs for inclusion and differentiation. To the extent that it is possible to engineer these circumstances what one might attempt to do is select superordinate identities that are of moderate levels of inclusiveness, direct group members’ attention toward intergroup comparisons that are likely to foster the perception of optimal distinctiveness for both subordinate and superordinate identities, and/or directly influence the level of group members’ needs for inclusion and differentiation. Each of these strategies is discussed in greater detail here. Although recategorization of an in-group and an out-group as part of a superordinate group may result from naturally occurring circumstances, for example, when nations band together to fight a common enemy, recategorization may also occur from deliberate attempts to encourage in-group and out-group members to view themselves as part of a larger category. In organizational contexts, this might occur when company leaders explicitly encourage employees within the company to think of themselves simply as company employees and not as members of specific teams or units. Although there may be pragmatic reasons for selecting particular superordinate identities over others, the success of recategorization attempts may depend critically on how inclusive the superordinate category is perceived to be within the particular social context. Employees who see their organization as being distinctive relative to comparable organizations should have an easier time identifying with the superordinate organization. Thus, when possible, superordinate identities should be selected with an eye toward how well that identity can meet group members’ needs for both inclusion and differentiation. However, when the particular superordinate identity is predetermined and cannot be controlled, another strategy for fostering successful recategorization is to influence group members’ perception of the distinctiveness of the superordinate category. One way to achieve this is by encouraging particular intergroup comparisons. When the superordinate group is compared to other inclusive social categories, the superordinate group may seem more exclusive by comparison. For example, warring departments within a university may have difficulty adopting


the superordinate category of the university because the university as a whole is less distinctive than each individual department. However, if the comparison frame were to switch from a vertical comparison to a horizontal one (Figure 6.2), the salient comparisons would then be between different superordinate groups (e.g., different universities). If their university is relatively distinctive compared with other universities, individuals may then be motivated to identify with the superordinate university category. Thus, to the extent that a horizontal comparison frame increases the perceived distinctiveness of the superordinate group, subgroup members should be more likely to identify with the superordinate group and engage in recategorization. For this reason, shifting group members to a horizontal comparison may be a useful strategy for promoting recategorization and more positive intergroup relations. In organizational contexts, this has the potential benefit of increasing focus on external comparisons (e.g., competitors) while simultaneously increasing cooperation across divisional or cross-functional areas within the organization. Thus, dual identification within workplace hierarchies may lead to increased productivity and team performance. This idea is consistent with studies on the motivational effects of social comparisons within corporate hierarchies (Joseph & Gaba, 2010) and posits a critical role for identification with groups at multiple levels within an organization. A third strategy for fostering recategorization is to directly influence group members’ needs for inclusion and differentiation. Arousing the need for inclusion may motivate group members to identify more with the superordinate category than they otherwise might, whereas arousing the need for differentiation may motivate group members to identify more with the subgroup than they otherwise might. The data referenced in Table 6.3 are consistent with this notion; when the need for differentiation was aroused, group members were just as likely to identify with an extremely small subgroup as they were with a moderately inclusive subgroup, but this was not the case when the need for inclusion was aroused. An interesting question is under what conditions will need arousal lead group members to identify with extremely inclusive or exclusive groups. Since the theory’s inception (Brewer, 1991), optimal distinctiveness theory has argued that individuals try to meet both of the countervailing needs for inclusion and differentiation. If so, then identification with these extremely inclusive or extremely exclusive groups may be unstable; individuals identify with these extreme (and nonoptimal) groups until individuals feel the need has been met. This speculation remains open and would benefit from empirical testing.


Cultural Assimilation The research literature on immigrants and their experience in integrating into their new host countries suggests that this process can be quite different for different individuals. In one model of acculturation, Berry (1998, 2001) identified four types of individuals (integrated, assimilated, separated, and marginalized) based on the extent to which these individuals maintained their home cultural heritage and the extent to which they engaged in contact with members of the new host country. Recent research by Benet-Martinez and her colleagues (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005) on bicultural identity integration (BII) also supports the notion that individuals differ in how they approach the two identities of their home and host cultures. Although this growing body of literature has done a good job of characterizing the experience of different immigrants, more research is needed to fully understand the different motivational forces that might lead immigrants to be more or less assimilated into their host culture and what leads some immigrants to feel that their two identities are integrated versus separate. In the context of individuals who have immigrated to the United States, they are faced with a large superordinate identity (Americans) and also with the subgroup identity that encompasses Americans who share their national heritage (e.g., other individuals who have emigrated from China). Thus, one way of characterizing the immigrant context is in terms of nested categories. Given this view, it is possible to apply an optimal distinctiveness approach to the immigrant context and explore the implications of these hypotheses for predicting the psychological experience of immigrants. According to Berry’s (1998, 2001) acculturation model, integrated individuals are those who not only want to maintain their identity with their home culture, but also want to take on some characteristics of the new culture. Assimilated individuals do not want to keep their identity from their home culture but would rather take on all of the characteristics of the new culture. Separated individuals want to maintain their identity with their home culture and separate themselves from the new culture. Marginalized individuals have neither the desire to maintain their old culture nor any desire to take on the characteristics of the new culture. Although a variety of factors likely influences which of these types immigrants fall into, we argue that the ability of the superordinate and subgroup identities to satisfy immigrants’ needs for inclusion and differentiation is one important determinant. As immigrants move to their new culture, they are likely to experience a dramatic shift in the structure of their social identities. Identities that were distinctive


in their home culture may be nondistinctive in the new culture and identities that had provided a strong sense of inclusion in their home country may no longer do so in the new country. Thus, need satisfaction might be of heightened concern to new immigrants and thus particularly influential in determining the nature of immigrants’ relationships to their subordinate and superordinate identities. Our model predicts that integration of the two identities is most likely to occur under conditions in which immigrants derive a sense of inclusion from the superordinate identity and also see the superordinate identity as being distinctive. A common phenomenon among new immigrants is that they will often start out living and working in homogenous communities comprised of other members of their subgroup (e.g., immigrant enclaves; Abrahamson, 1996; Wilson & Portes, 1980). These communities can not only provide new immigrants with material and economic resources but may provide a psychological resource as well in the form of satisfaction of the need for inclusion. As immigrants become more acculturated (e.g., they learn the host language and become more conversant in the new culture and its norms), they may begin to derive feelings of belongingness from their superordinate identity. When this happens one should observe a concomitant shift in dual identification. By the same token, for new immigrants the superordinate identity may seem quite large and they may lack the cultural knowledge needed to appreciate the distinctive aspects of their new culture. Thus, once again, a period of acculturation may be a necessary precursor to dual identification for many immigrants. The concept of dueling identities is captured most clearly among the category of separated and assimilated immigrants. These individuals have chosen to move or stay close to one identity and forsake the other. Again, there may be a multitude of reasons for why these individuals have chosen one identity over the other, but one possible interpretation originates with the needs for inclusion or differentiation: separated immigrants perceive the superordinate identity as being too inclusive and thus they reject that identity in favor of their subgroup identity, and assimilated immigrants perceive their subgroup identity as lacking inclusiveness (perhaps they have emigrated from a country for which no community exists in their new culture) and thus they reject their subgroup identity and assimilate fully to their new culture. In summary, it is possible to examine the cultural assimilation process from an optimal distinctiveness perspective. Doing so not only suggests potential reasons for why some immigrants are integrated whereas others are assimilated, separated, or marginalized but


also offers avenues for improving the experience of immigrants. For example, messages that highlight how immigrants have been integral to the United States since the nation has been founded may have the effect of increasing perceptions of belongingness and may ultimately foster greater assimilation to the American superordinate identity.

CONCLUSION This chapter considers the role that the need for optimal distinctiveness plays in predicting group identification in nested category contexts. Previous applications of optimal distinctiveness theory to nested category contexts (Brewer, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg, 1999) reveal that individuals are more likely to identify with a subgroup over a superordinate group as the superordinate category’s inclusiveness increases. Our review of the literature leads us to conclude that this effect depends on the kind of social comparison used to determine the superordinate category’s inclusiveness. Furthermore, we argue that one type of social comparison—horizontal comparisons—allows for the possibility that group members might perceive both their subgroup and superordinate categories as optimally distinct, thereby allowing individuals to engage a dual identity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded in part by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant to the first author and by a grant from United States Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARSYSCEN) Atlantic to the second author. Thanks to Sam Gaertner for commenting on a previous version of the chapter.

REFERENCES Abrahamson, M. (1996). Urban enclaves: Identity and place in America. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050. Berry, J. W. (1998). Intercultural relations in plural societies. Canadian Psychology, 40, 12–21. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–631. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.


Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Brewer, M. B., Manzi, J. M., & Shaw, J. S. (1993). In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science, 4, 88–92. Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and out-group tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428–437. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163–254). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Crisp, R. J., Hewstone, M., & Rubin, M. (2001). Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 76–89. Crisp, R. J., Stone, C. H., & Hall, N. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230–243. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1084–1121). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). New York: Taylor & Francis. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A. J., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249. Greenland, K., & Brown, R. (1999). Categorization and intergroup anxiety in contact between British and Japanese nationals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 503–521. González, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifications in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 195–214.

124 • Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, John E. Joseph Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543–550. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948–958. Joseph, J., & Gaba, V. (2010). Corporate structure, goal hierarchy and performance feedback: The effects of corporate and business unit goals on risk taking an innovation. Working paper. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC. Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of selfattitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 58–76. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645–659. Leonardelli, G. J., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 468–485. Leonardelli, G. J., & Joseph, J. E. (2009). Nested identities by need state and subgroup size. Unpublished raw data. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Canada. Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition and intergroup relations. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 65–115). New York: Elsevier. Leonardelli, G. J., & Toh, S. M. (2011). Perceiving expatriate coworkers as foreigners encourages aid: Social categorization and procedural justice together improve intergroup cooperation and dual identity. Psychological Science, 22(1), 110–117. doi: 10.1177/0956797610391913. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated selfstereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543–562. Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Assimilation and differentiation needs as motivational determinants of perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 341–348. Pickett, C. L., & Hess, Y. D. (2009). Identifying the predictors of U.S. national identification and allegiance. Unpublished raw data.


Pickett, C. L., Silver, M. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of ingroup size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546–558. Richter, A. W., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1252–1269. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sidanius, J. H., Feshbach, S., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1997). The interface between ethnic and national attachment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 103–133. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051–1062. Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: Self-categorization theory (pp. 42–67). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers, and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400. Wilson, K. L., & Portes, A. (1980). Immigrant enclaves: An analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 295–319. Yzerbyt, V., & DeMoulin, S. (2010). Intergroup relations. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024–1083). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Zhong, C.-B., Phillips, K. W., Leonardelli, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Negational categorization and intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 793–806.

7 AGENT-BASED MODELING AS A TOOL FOR STUDYING SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES The Case of Optimal Distinctiveness Theory Cynthia L. Pickett, Paul E. Smaldino, Jeffrey W. Sherman, and Jeffrey Schank

Researchers studying social identity and intergroup relations have traditionally approached group behavior as an interaction between the individual, the group, and the social context in which the individual and group are embedded. This approach has been quite fruitful, as evidenced by the proliferation of theories and studies over the last several decades that have identified the psychological and sociocontextual features that are likely to give rise to particular group behaviors (e.g., in-group bias, discrimination, intergroup hostility). However, these theories are based largely on how individuals are predicted to respond and behave under particular circumstances, often without explicit consideration of the interdependence among individuals or the group-level outcomes that may emerge as a result of the interactions among individual actors. This approach is similar to a traffic engineer attempting to understand traffic patterns by examining the motivations and behaviors of individual drivers. Individual-level theories may tell the engineer that drivers attempt to maximize the speed of their car and avoid erratic fellow drivers. But understanding why traffic jams occur requires consideration of how the behavior of one driver affects the behavior of multiple other drivers and how these behaviors unfold over time. In this chapter, we echo the sentiment of other researchers 127

128 • Cynthia L. Pickett, Paul E. Smaldino, Jeffrey W. Sherman

(e.g., Goldstone & Janssen, 2005; Smith & Conrey, 2007) and argue that understanding group-level phenomena requires studying both individual-level processes and the global structures that emerge as a result of interactions among individuals. Although the accumulated research within social psychology has provided the field with many good theories of how individuals react and behave in group contexts, we know relatively little about how these individual-level behaviors contribute to larger patterns of group behavior (e.g., intergroup segregation, status hierarchies, group formation). To understand these patterns of group behavior, psychologists have focused primarily on the psychological needs that individuals attempt to satisfy through their group memberships. For example, according to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), individuals are hypothesized to associate themselves with groups that compare positively to other groups as a means of bolstering self-esteem. Other theories, such as optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991), focus on individuals’ desires for inclusion and distinctiveness from others as predictors of group identification. Although social-psychological research has advanced our understanding of the psychological underpinnings of group identification, the work is limited by the tendency for researchers to focus on single motivations as opposed to multiple motivations operating simultaneously. In addition, the work relies heavily on studies of individual actors without considering the interdependencies among the actors or the large-scale patterns of outcomes that emerge when multiple actors connected within social networks interact and mutually influence each other over time. On the other side of the coin, group formation has been a topic of interest within fields such as sociology and computer science, where the emphasis has been on studying how groups and communities evolve (e.g., Backstrom, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Lan, 2006). However, this research typically lacks an explicit treatment of the intraindividual processes that guide the behavior of individual actors. For example, studies in this area may tell us that groups tend to fragment after reaching a particular size, but they are silent regarding what motivates individual actors to exhibit the behavior that gives rise to this emergent pattern (for an exception, see Grönlund & Holme, 2004). The primary goal of this chapter is to discuss the potential benefits of applying a systems-oriented approach to the study of social identity processes and group behavior. In particular, we have been utilizing agent-based models (ABM) in our own research to explore hypotheses inspired by ODT (Brewer, 1991). Agent-based models simulate the behavior of individuals through the creation of virtual agents who

Agent-Based Modeling as a Tool • 129

follow preprogrammed rules. These rules are often derived from existing psychological theories. What is of interest, however, is what emerges from the interactions among these agents (Goldstone & Janssen, 2005). Two decades of research on ODT has resulted in an impressive array of studies that demonstrate that the needs for inclusion and differentiation can have profound effects on the perceptions, judgments, and behavior of individuals (Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010). For this Festschrift volume in honor of Marilynn Brewer’s prolific research career, it seemed fitting to take the study of optimal distinctiveness to a different level of analysis and explore the patterns of group behavior that emerge from a system of autonomous agents who follow one very simple rule: seek optimal distinctiveness. In this chapter, we first describe agent-based modeling and review some examples of how ABM has been successfully used to further the field’s understanding of important social psychological phenomena. We then describe our recent efforts at developing an agent-based model to examine the macrostructures that emerge when agents are programmed to seek optimal distinctiveness and continue with additional examples of how ABM might be fruitfully applied to study the emergent outcomes of the motives of individual group members. We then conclude with a discussion of the benefits of agent-based modeling for the study of social psychological phenomena more broadly.

WHAT IS AGENT-BASED MODELING? Social behavior, from persuasion and attitude change, to interpersonal relationships, to group interactions, results not only from the intrapsychic psychological processes of isolated individuals but also from interactions among multiple individual agents over time. In fact, in many cases, collective outcomes differ drastically from what any party expects or desires. For example, in studies of bystander intervention, because all participants assume that someone else is helping, the outcome is that no one helps. In the case of the commons dilemma and other social dilemmas, when self-interested individuals overuse a resource (grazing grounds, fisheries) or use a resource without paying for it (public television), the resource may be destroyed to the detriment of all. Despite the importance of these “emergent” effects among individual actors, explanations of such phenomena among social psychologists have focused almost exclusively on the processes that characterize how isolated individuals perceive, understand, and react to various stimuli. At the same time, other disciplines have focused almost entirely on aggregate or population-level outcomes of social behavior. For example,


economic, sociological, and political-science research often seeks to explain the proportions of populations that adopt a particular innovation. Researchers in sociology and physics have focused on social information networks and the flow of information through these networks that results in opinion convergence, group formation, and other outcomes. In contrast to the individual, process-oriented approach of social psychology, these approaches are largely unconcerned with the intrapsychic processes that characterize the psychology of individual actors. What happens to specific individuals and why are not of concern; rather, the concern is what happens to whole populations over time. In recent years, researchers have increasingly sought to integrate the individual, process-level approach with the aggregate, group-level approach to provide a fuller understanding of social psychology and behavior (for a review, see Smith & Conrey, 2007). Perhaps the most effective means of combining these approaches is through the use of agentbased modeling (also called multiagent modeling). An agent-based model is a simulated multiagent system that can be constructed to capture key elements of social psychological processes and behavior. In such systems, each agent typically represents an individual human acting according to a set of established behavioral motives and rules. These behavioral motives and rules generally reflect the kinds of individual-level processes that have been widely studied by psychologists. In an ABM, many simulated agents interact with one another and/or their environments over simulated time, based on the individual processes that guide the agents’ actions. Importantly, the outcomes of the agents in such a system are interdependent: each agent’s ability to achieve its goals depends not only on what it does but also what other agents do. Thus, the model permits observation of the emergent, aggregate consequences of many agents interacting interdependently and dynamically over a period of time (for a recent example, see Mason, Conrey, & Smith, 2007). In essence, then, ABM is a tool for bridging the individual and aggregate levels of analysis. The extensive knowledge that psychologists have garnered regarding individual-level psychology is implemented by the rules that guide the behavior of individual agents. These processes also may be represented in the rules governing the natures and outcomes of interactions among agents. The aggregate level emerges as the multiple agents interact with one another and the environment over time. Beyond integrating these different levels of analysis, the great advantage of this approach is that, in many cases, the consequences of multiagent interactions over time fail to match what might be expected based on the behavioral propensities of individual agents, as in the cases of bystander intervention and the commons dilemma. Such emergent


processes are all but impossible to study in the context of controlled laboratory experiments. Some Illustrative Examples Segregation In one of the earliest applications of ABM in the social sciences, Schelling (1971) examined how segregation between social groups can arise through the actions of individual agents, even when no agent specifically desires segregation. Schelling’s model assumed that each agent used a single, simple rule: do not be in the minority in your neighborhood. To implement the model, agents moved to random empty spaces if the proportion of “in-group” agents surrounding their current space fell below a certain threshold, such as 50%. The rule was applied until all agents stopped moving, settling into their spaces. The final result, which occurred under a wide range of moving thresholds, was almost complete segregation among the agents, with clear group boundaries. This model was important because it offered the counterintuitive conclusion that extreme segregation may inevitably result from the extended interactions and choices of individuals who do not necessarily desire extreme segregation. The model also makes clear that such an outcome does not require the intervention of a central, organizing agency (e.g., real-estate agents) in order for segregation to occur, but rather may emerge in a self-organized fashion from individual-level motives. Finally, the model was important in demonstrating the significance of an agent’s definition of neighborhood. When agents were programmed to define their neighborhoods narrowly, segregation was a very likely outcome. In contrast, if agents defined their neighborhoods more broadly (e.g., the whole population of agents in a wider region—a city vs. a neighborhood), extreme segregation was far less likely. Mate Choice Kalick and Hamilton (1986) used ABM to simulate the well-known empirical fact that people tend to end up with romantic partners of about equal attractiveness to themselves. Highly attractive people end up with highly attractive people, moderately attractive people end up with moderately attractive people, and so on. A common explanation for this fact was that people actively seek partners with similar levels of attractiveness, presumably due to the fear of being rejected by more attractive prospects (e.g., Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971) or from a general preference for similarity in all attributes. However, repeated studies found no support for the proposed similarity preference. Instead, all people demonstrate a strong preference for the most attractive potential partners (e.g., Curran & Lippold, 1975). Kalick and Hamilton sought to resolve this paradox via ABM.


In their simulation, 500 “male” and 500 “female” agents were given attractiveness values and then were randomly selected in pairs. Upon selection, the two agents paired off together only if both agents extended an offer to the other. The process continued until all agents were paired. When the likelihood of an offer was set to correlate with the attractiveness of the potential partner (e.g., .9 for a 9/10 on attractiveness, .1 for a 1/10), the result was a correlation in attractiveness of the two agents of around .5 to .6—matching the observed level among humans. The simulation showed that this result occurs because the most attractive agents tend to pair up early and are, therefore, removed from the population. As time passes, the attractiveness of the remaining agents decreases. Once again, the value of this model is in demonstrating the counterintuitive effects of a simple rule (seeking the most attractive possible partner) iterated dynamically across many agents and over time. Person Perception More recently, Smith and Collins (2009) used ABM to simulate the processes by which impressions of people are constructed, transmitted, and filtered through social networks. Among other variables, their model assigned values to agents representing how probable they were to “behave” in a positive or negative manner. The model assumed that agents will repeatedly interact only with agents who act positively toward them. One outcome was that agents formed more negative impressions of other agents than was warranted by the agents’ probabilities of positive and negative behaviors. This result is due to the fact that positive interactions with an “unlikeable” agent could be corrected through repeated interaction, whereas negative interactions with an objectively “likeable” agent are not corrected because they result in decreased future interaction (see Denrell, 2005, for a mathematical model of this process). The model also showed that when agents are permitted to “gossip” with one another about thirdparty agents, impressions of the third parties became less negative, even though the communicating agents were likely to have equally negative views of the third party. This is because the opportunity to gossip with one another provided agents with a larger sample of information about the third party, which more accurately described the overall positivity of the third party. Thus, this model showed that simple rules about interacting and communicating with other agents have important effects on the nature and accuracy of social impressions when the processes iterate across multiple agents and over time. These outcomes had not been anticipated based on what had been known about individual-level impression formation processes. A particularly useful feature of this model is that it included three different levels


of variables: (1) individual-level variables that described the internal workings of the agents, (2) dyadic-level variables that described how pairs of agents interact, and (3) system-level variables that described how influence spread through the whole community of agents.

APPLYING AGENT-BASED MODELING TO OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS THEORY According to ODT (Brewer, 1991), social identity is conceptualized as deriving from a “fundamental tension between human needs for validation and similarity to others (on the one hand) and a countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation (on the other)” (p. 477). Membership in moderately sized groups is considered to be optimal because there is a sufficient number of other individuals in the group, which allows for a sense of inclusion and belonging with other group members. At the same time, however, the group can be used as the basis for distinguishing the individual from nongroup members, thereby satisfying the need for distinctiveness. For example, a person may choose to join a group of sailing enthusiasts because doing so provides a sense of belonging with fellow sailors, while simultaneously allowing the individual to be distinguished from others (e.g., runners). Existing research supports the idea that people prefer memberships in distinctive social groups (e.g., Leonardelli & Brewer, 2001; Pickett, Silver, & Brewer, 2002), but this work is based primarily on people’s subjective reports of their existing group memberships and does not examine how group formation processes are shaped by the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness. Furthermore, tests of ODT have often been limited to experimentally heightening the need for either inclusion or distinctiveness (e.g., Pickett et al., 2002) and have not been able to precisely examine the patterns of behavior that emerge at varying levels of the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness. Finally, these tests of ODT generally hold variables such as status constant, and thus we know relatively little about how the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness play out in the context of other competing motives (e.g., self-esteem). Current Research Program As an initial step toward closing these research gaps, we have embarked on the development of a program of research in which we apply agentbased modeling to the study of social identification processes and group behavior. The overarching goal of this research program is to gain insight into global patterns of group behavior (e.g., the formation and


dissolution of groups, the emergence of group-based status hierarchies) by modeling the behavior of individual actors and examining the dynamic outcomes of the interactions among those actors. Because simplicity is a virtue in the world of agent-based modeling, our first attempt at examining individual-level social identification processes and subsequent macrolevel outcomes centered on the relatively simple question of how the individual-level desire for membership in an optimally distinct group influences group formation and dissolution processes. In existing experimental tests of ODT, arousal of inclusion and distinctiveness needs led study participants to exhibit a preference for groups that were most likely to meet those needs (e.g., groups that were at an optimal level of inclusiveness). However, a group’s level of inclusiveness is not static and, in fact, may be in a constant state of flux particularly when group boundaries are relatively permeable. This led us to the assumption that the desire for optimal distinctiveness at the individual level pushes individuals toward joining or leaving the groups based on the size of the group and the individual’s preferred level of group inclusiveness. In addition, we sought to examine the macrolevel outcomes of this process. A reasonable prediction is that in a multigroup environment, a number of moderately sized groups will emerge such that all agents in a system are able to meet their optimal distinctiveness goal. In other words, as agents join groups of the desired size, they will stay in those groups unless the groups become overly large or overly small until the whole system settles into a state of equilibrium. Thus, in an ideal world, the end equilibrium state will contain groups whose sizes match the preferred level of group inclusiveness of the individuals in that system. However, this ideal split might be difficult to achieve for a variety of reasons. First, in the real world, when a popular commodity exists, there can often be an overabundance of interest. For example, when a new checkout lane opens up at a grocery store, for a short while it has the shortest line at the store. However, as people standing in line at other lanes switch to the newly opened lane, it quickly develops a line just as long as the other lanes until all the lines are of roughly equal length. Although all individuals at the store seek the shortest line, a comparatively short line does not exist for very long. Second, through simple random fluctuations, frontrunners can emerge early in a contest leading to the demise of other contestants. In social groups, groups that start off closest to an optimally distinct size may become overwhelmingly popular such that the less popular groups shrink over time until they reach the point of nonexistence, ironically leading to groups at the end that fail to be optimal.


Simulation Environment Our plan in setting up our simulations was to vary specific aspects of the modeling environment—the number of initial groups, the number of agents, the number of other agents that any particular agent could “see” in their environment (i.e., the local environment), and the optimal distinctiveness seeking rule (e.g., agents’ preferences for groups of a particular size)—and then to observe the movements of the agents and the ultimate patterns that emerge. For our simulations, an agent-based model was written in Java, using the MASON simulation library (Luke, Balan, Panait, Cioffi-Revilla, & Paus, 2003). MASON is a discrete-event multiagent simulation package that can be used to model a wide range of dynamic events, for example, swarms and complex social interactions. The program also allows users to visualize the movement of individual agents and the patterns that these movements produce. Our initial simulations focused primarily on varying the group-size preferences of the individual agents (while holding other aspects of the simulation environment constant) and examining the number and size of the groups that emerged. What this meant for the individual agents is that they all followed the rule of joining whatever group was closest to the preference value set for that simulation (e.g., 33%, 25%, 45%). If the most optimally distinct group in the agent’s local environment happened to be the group to which the agent already belonged, the agent kept their group membership. If a different group was more optimally distinct in the agent’s environment at that particular time step, the agent would discard its current group membership in favor of the more optimally distinct group membership. Agents assessed their group memberships asynchronously. After specifying these parameters, we allowed the program to run—that is, proceed through a series of time steps where an assessment of the local environment and the opportunity to change group membership occurred at each time step—until the system reached an equilibrium point and a stable pattern emerged. The most notable finding that emerged from these simulations was the number and size of the groups that were produced. When a multigroup environment was set up at the outset (e.g., four equally sized groups or six equally sized groups), programming agents to prefer membership in groups that represented 33% of the population resulted, ironically, in the formation of two groups of equal size (each representing 50% of the population). Because all agents in the simulation were programmed to join the group in their local environment that was closest to the preference set point, agents tended to gravitate toward the same groups. With each time step in the simulation, less popular groups


drifted further from the preference set point until they were no longer represented in the environment. Additional simulations that varied the group-size preference of the agents incrementally always resulted in the formation of groups that were less than optimal (i.e., which failed to match group members’ size preferences). These simulations suggest that when all individuals within a particular environment share the exact same preference for a particular group size, their joint actions may actually impede the formation of groups of the preferred size. In future simulations, it will be of interest to explore what conditions would actually lead to the optimal satisfaction of agents’ group-size preferences. It may be the case that when preferences are distributed more normally, more adaptive patterns of group formation emerge. These results highlight the fact that the creation of optimally distinct groups does not simply happen because each individual group member desires membership in a group of optimal size. As in the real world, these simulations do not involve an omniscient being who has complete knowledge of the environmental space and can assign group memberships in a way that ensures an optimal group size. Instead, individual agents make choices based on the choices of other agents, and the result can sometimes be less than desired, as was the case in the simulations presented here. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are many simulations that could be run and the outcomes of those simulations may differ from the simulations presented here. Thus, our results should not be taken to mean that the spontaneous formation of optimally distinct groups cannot emerge, but rather that the formation of optimally distinct groups did not emerge under the conditions that were specified here. Future Applications of Agent-Based Modeling to Optimal Distinctiveness Theory As noted above, in future research, agent-based modeling can be used to examine the conditions under which the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness—as well as self-esteem—actually do lead to the formation of optimally distinct groups. A central tenet of ODT is that group identification will be greatest among groups in which the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness are equally satisfied. Thus, we plan to run simulations to determine whether attempts to satisfy this “equal satisfaction” constraint lead to the formation of groups that are of moderate size (i.e., optimally distinct). Over time (i.e., sequential time steps of the model), agents could band together into groups, and groups that are very small compared to other groups in the context might expand (by attracting other members) and groups that are very large might


contract (by expelling members). These patterns of expansion and contraction could ultimately lead to convergence on a set of moderately sized groups to which most members of the population belong. We are also very interested in the larger scale patterns that emerge from the individual-level needs for belonging, distinctiveness, and selfesteem. Using U.S. census data, Lau (1989) examined the extent to which African Americans in various settings reported feeling close to other African Americans. Lau found group identity to be strongest among African Americans who lived in areas in which 40%–70% of the population was also African American. It is possible that living in areas that are neither predominantly white nor predominantly African American creates an optimal level of both distinctiveness and inclusiveness for African Americans, thereby fostering greater group identification. Because of the difficulty of studying migratory patterns of populations in real time and the inability to experimentally manipulate features of real-world social contexts, agent-based modeling provides a very useful tool for studying the influence of the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness on the formation of groups in geographical space. Tests of ODT have not examined whether group members migrate to particular locations as means of satisfying their needs for inclusion and distinctiveness. Through agent-based modeling, we can create populations with simulated neighborhoods and vary the initial numbers of group members in various neighborhoods. We can then create agents with inclusion- and distinctiveness-seeking rules and examine whether agents tend to settle in neighborhoods where there are a particular percentage of other in-group members in that neighborhood. More specifically, what one might expect are neighborhoods that are dominated by groups that each share a moderate proportion of the population (e.g., 35%) as opposed to highly heterogeneous neighborhoods with many groups with a small share of the population. Furthermore, we can examine how features such as initial proximity to other group members and interaction patterns among agents contribute to these migration patterns. In addition to examining the group formation process, a fruitful avenue for future research is examining the dissolution of groups and the formation of subgroups. According to ODT, feelings of deindividuation should motivate people to adopt more exclusive group identities as opposed to seeking total individuation. Thus, the need for distinctiveness can be satisfied in two complementary and sometimes sequential ways: (1) making intragroup distinctions, that is, dividing an overly inclusive group into more distinctive subgroups with which to identify, and (2) making intergroup comparisons between one’s subgroup and


another subgroup. Although subgroup differentiation is a proposed outcome of the operation of inclusion and distinctiveness needs within a group context, very few studies have specifically tested the hypothesis that people respond to membership in an overly inclusive group by engaging in a drive for subgroup distinctiveness. In addition, the studies that do exist (e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 1999) use outcome measures, such as bias against other subgroups, as indicators of differentiation as opposed to examining the splintering and division of groups as they occur over real time. An advantage of ABM is that it provides a window into the differentiation process as it occurs over simulated time. We can assign agents to highly inclusive groups and study how the relative strength of the needs for inclusion and distinctiveness affects the formation of subgroups (e.g., the number of subgroups formed and the stability of the groups). It is also possible to model group dissolution— when members abandon a group altogether—to see whether the psychological forces under study are sufficient to produce that outcome.

USING AGENT-BASED MODELS TO STUDY GROUP-BASED STATUS HIERARCHIES In addition to using ABM to study processes directly related to ODT, ABM can be applied to other questions of interest to social psychologists. In this section, we describe how ABM might be employed to study the conditions that lead to the emergence of group-based status hierarchies. Most modern human societies are characterized by the presence of group-based status hierarchies. Although these hierarchies may be predicated upon different features (e.g., age, gender, education level), what these hierarchies have in common is the presence of one or more dominant social groups that enjoy disproportionate social advantages while other groups suffer disproportionate social disadvantages (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In addition to being pervasive, these hierarchies also tend to be both stable and consensual in that there is typically high agreement among society members on the ordering of groups within the status hierarchy. For example, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) asked 723 UCLA undergraduates to rate the social status of five ethnic groups (whites, Asians, Arabs, blacks, and Latinos). These researchers found extremely high consensus among respondents in the ratings of the groups (average intraclass r = .999) and found that this consensuality in the perceived social status of American ethnic groups was largely unaffected by the group to which the respondent belonged.


Although the ubiquity of group-based status hierarchies in modern human societies is widely acknowledged, less agreement exists regarding the proximal mechanisms that drive these hierarchies. Traditional theories of prejudice argue that group-based hierarchies are a product of oppression by members of the dominant social group. Through both individual acts of discrimination and institutional discrimination, dominant groups can subjugate others and maintain their status differential. Other theories such as social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and system justification theory (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) take a different stance and propose that members of groups at the low ends of the status hierarchy are also active contributors to their own oppression. By supporting policies that favor dominant groups and adopting ideologies that justify the hierarchy, subordinates contribute to the formation and maintenance of these hierarchies. A third perspective on the formation of group-based hierarchies comes from SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to SIT, the need for self-esteem is thought to lead group members to adopt various behavioral and cognitive identity management styles. One of these identity management styles is social competition, a form of intergroup discrimination that is used to create or protect high in-group status. It is clear that many forces may be involved in the formation of status hierarchies. Yet it is also possible that a phenomenon as complex as the formation of group-based hierarchies may emerge from a fairly simple set of psychological motives. Within the social-psychological literature, researchers have had a long-standing interest in understanding the motivational underpinnings of social categorization and group identification. Work in this area has revealed a core set of motivations (self-esteem, distinctiveness, belongingness, uncertainty reduction, and power) that appear to drive individuals to seek out group memberships and that predict individuals’ loyalty and adherence to groups. Traditionally in this area, researchers have tended to develop simple motive-feature match models that predict that identification should be strongest when individual motives and group features match (Riketta, 2008). However, researchers have typically not considered what happens when individuals attempt to satisfy multiple motives simultaneously. In addition, in the real world (i.e., outside the psychological laboratory), individuals are embedded within social networks (e.g., societies) where they interact and mutually influence each other. Thus, particular patterns of broader-scale outcomes may emerge as a function of multiple individuals with different sets of motivations interacting over time. However, it is impossible for simple, nondynamic models to adequately capture these emergent patterns.


We propose that group-based status hierarchies may be one such emergent pattern. Individuals within a society are motivated to form or join groups that allow them to feel a sense of belonging with others and a sense of distinctiveness, and that also confer positive social value, which in turn fosters self-esteem. Individuals attempting to satisfy all three of these needs simultaneously should be motivated to form or join relatively small, high-status groups. We predict that all agents in a particular context will want to join the highest status group available and that interaction patterns among agents will create a hierarchical structure. High-status groups should form relatively quickly and then begin excluding other members from the group once the group reaches a certain size (because group members need the group to be small in order to satisfy their need for distinctiveness). Once the highest status group becomes highly restrictive, a second-tier group will form, and so forth. In both laboratory and real-world settings, it is very difficult to observe group formation processes as they evolve. For this reason, agent-based modeling may be particularly useful for testing hypotheses regarding the relationship between individual-level psychological motives and the emergence of group-based status hierarchies. This research would provide the first ABM examination of the hypothesis that group-based status hierarchies can arise simply from the desire of individual actors to satisfy basic psychological needs. A unique aspect of this particular model is that it suggests that although prejudice and discriminatory practices may contribute to the formation of status hierarchies, these processes may not be necessary and may, in fact, be epiphenomenal. In addition, the modeling would allow one to test whether varying particular features of the interactions among agents in a system and the strength of the different psychological motives leads to different emergent patterns. For example, if the need for distinctiveness is low, there may be greater tolerance for larger social groups resulting in a status dichotomy (one low-status group and one high-status group) as opposed to a proliferation of smaller groups arrayed in a hierarchy. This work has the potential to reveal new insights into the nature of group-based status hierarchies and can allow for the rapid generation of additional testable hypotheses.

CONCLUSION To date, almost all scientific analyses of group formation and change have focused on either the individual-level, psychological processes that influence the behavior of autonomous persons or aggregate-level outcomes that describe the end states of multiagent interactions. Individual-level


analyses do not consider the operation of psychological processes in the context of multiple interdependent agents that interact over an extended period of time. Aggregate-level analyses rarely concern themselves with the psychological motives and processes of individual actors that define the nature of interactions among multiple agents and that play a determinative role in aggregate outcomes. The agent-based modeling that we are conducting combines these two levels of analysis, permitting a richer and more nuanced understanding of how individual-level psychology and group-level behavior interact to produce important outcomes. By examining multiagent interactions over time, agent-based modeling can reveal important emergent effects that could not be predicted only on the basis of knowledge of individual-level processes. At the same time, the ability to independently manipulate the nature of the agents’ individual and dyadic motives and behavior permits direct tests of the roles of these processes in producing aggregate outcomes. Finally, the ABM environment permits the manipulation of social context-level variables that are difficult to systematically vary in laboratory experiments. The ability to examine multiagent interactions over time also is a unique feature of agent-based modeling that cannot be accomplished with standard behavioral laboratory methods. Yet another important feature of the agent-based modeling approach is its usefulness for theory development. Decades of behavioral laboratory research form the basis for the rules governing the individuallevel behavior of agents in the model. However, ABM simulations frequently produce novel and unexpected outcomes that could not have been predicted from individual-level research. These outcomes can then form the basis for further traditional behavioral research, suggesting novel hypotheses to be tested at the individual level. For example, Kalick and Hamilton’s (1986) model of mate selection generated the novel prediction that mate pairs formed later in time will be less attractive than those that formed earlier. This, of course, can be directly tested with human participants in a laboratory. Similarly, it is likely that agent-based models that are developed to study group formation and change will generate new hypotheses about how different individual-level motives interact under different conditions. These hypotheses can then be tested in the laboratory. In this way, research moves back and forth between models and empirical investigations (Smith & Conrey, 2007). Thus, agent-based modeling permits the examination of emergent properties that cannot be studied at the individual level, but also suggests novel individual-level hypotheses for testing.


REFERENCES Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Lan, X. (2006). Group formation in large social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Philadelphia, PA: ACM Press. Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173–189. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Curran, J. P., & Lippold, S. (1975). The effects of physical attraction and attitude similarity on attraction in dating dyads. Journal of Personality, 43, 528–539. Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112, 951–978. Goldstone, R. L., & Janssen, M. A. (2005). Computational models of collective behavior. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 424–430. Grönlund, A., & Holme, P. (2004). The networked seceder model: Group formation in social and economic systems. Physical Review E 70, 036108. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543–550. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–920. Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 673–682. Lau, R. R. (1989). Individual and contextual influences on group identification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52 (September), 220–231. Leonardelli, G. J., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 468–485. Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition and intergroup relations. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 65–115). New York: Elsevier. Luke, S., Balan, G. C., Panait, L., Cioffi-Revilla, C., & Paus, S. (2003). MASON: A Java multi-agent simulation library. In Proceedings of The Agent 2003 Conference on Challenges in Social Simulation. Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating social influence processes: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 279–300. Pickett, C. L., Silver, M. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). The impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on perceived group importance and judgments of group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 546–558.


Riketta, M. (2008). Who identifies with which group? The motive-feature match principle and its limitations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 715–735. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143–186. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Contextualizing person perception: Distributed social cognition. Psychological Review, 116, 343–364. Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory-building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 87–104. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

8 RELIGION AS COLLECTIVE IDENTITY Ann C. Rumble

“Religion is the individual and social experience of the sacred that is manifest in mythologies, ritual, ethos, and integrated into a collective or organization…” Swenson (1999, p. 8) In a recent survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion, 71% of Americans surveyed believe in the absolute certainty of God, 82% say religion is at least somewhat important in their lives, and 53% attend religious services on at least a monthly basis (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2008). Religion is a powerful force in the personal, social, and political lives of a significant portion of the population of the United States and the world. Religion has a positive impact on members and within group interactions. Members of a religious community in comparison with nonmembers have an increased sense of psychological well-being, as well as improved health and longevity (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Cooperation within large religious communities increases, and in individuals with higher levels of religiosity, who are reminded of an omnipresent God, trust and other prosocial behaviors also increase (Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008). Religion, while having a significant impact on the individual, has an impact on society in general. Religious groups influence the political trajectory of a number of countries, including the United States, Egypt, the Netherlands, and Pakistan (Wellman & Tokuno, 2004). For example, the Muslim Brotherhood strives to establish Sharia

145

146 • Ann C. Rumble

law (or Islamic law) as the law of the land in many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain (Abed-Kotob, 1995). Religious differences have been the source of multiple intergroup conflicts in Israel, Northern Ireland, and former Yugoslavia. So, despite philosophers’ assertions that we are entering an age where science and reason will dominate society’s discourse and that the power of religion is fading (Russell, 1952), much evidence suggests religion remains a powerful force for significant portion of world’s population. Religion remains a potent source of attitudes, motivation, and behavior because it provides its members with both a coherent meaning system and a collective identity. In this chapter, I will argue that one reason why religion remains such powerful force in individuals’ lives is that it is inherently a social endeavor that provides members with a strong collective identity. To achieve this goal, I will rely on Marilynn Brewer and her colleagues’ extensive work on the importance of the collective in structuring identity and shaping behavior and cognition of individuals. The Dual Nature of Religion Durkheim’s (1915) assertion that religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to the sacred things…which unite in one single moral community” (p. 62) is echoed in Swenson’s (1999) characterization of religion as both an “individual and social experience with the sacred” a hundred years later (p. 8). Psychologists interested in the impact of religion on attitudes, motivation, and behavior have recognized the dual nature of religion in satisfying both an individual’s search for greater meaning and need for collective identity (Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010). Religion is unique in this regard, as opposed to alternative collective identities or meaning systems (i.e., ethnic, political, or national), which routinely do not always fulfill both functions in an individual’s life. The dual nature of religion has been described by researchers as incorporating both spirituality, or internal processes that arise from the search for the sacred, and religion, which encompasses both the search for the sacred but within the context of a social identity (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005). Spirituality encompasses an individual’s personal beliefs, values, and behaviors with regard to the sacred (Hood et al., 2009; Pargament, Magyar-Russell, & Murray-Swank, 2005; Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005). In addition, it is characterized by a personal transformation, through the search for an ultimate truth and meaning in life, in connection with a divine being or object (Hood et al., 2009; Pargament et al., 2005). An individual’s search for the sacred can lead to a religious worldview that can help to provide the individual a coherent meaning

Religion as Collective Identity • 147

system through which they will seek to understand the world around them (Hood et al., 2009; Vail et al., 2010). A religious worldview covers the range of human experiences (e.g., death, sex, family, society), is easily accessible, and usually provides a set of beliefs and values that govern choices across the behavioral spectrum (Hood et al., 2009). In particular, a religious worldview affords the individual a base from which to restore meaning and a sense of control when events cause disturbance to an individual’s life (Hood et al., 2009; Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, 2009; Vail et al., 2010). One reason it has been argued that religion is a particular potent force is that religion, unlike secular meaning systems (e.g., political ideologies or cultural values), is able to deal with the problem of death and morality salience. When individuals are reminded of their own death, this heightens their belief in supernatural powers, such as a god (Vail et al., 2010). Terror management theorists argue the power of religion is two-fold, one it provides a group membership, and two, most religions provide an explanation for what occurs after death. By providing both, religion is particularly suited for moderating the effect of morality salience for individuals, as opposed to other forms of collective identity, and/ or meaning systems. In addition, Kay et al. (2009) have proposed that individuals in part sustain religious beliefs that support an ordered, nonrandom reality when personal control for events is threatened. In particular, Laurin, Kay, and Moscovitch (2008) found that when individuals were asked to visualize a situation that produced high anxiety that also implied low personal control, they were more likely to believe in a controlling God. They conclude that one of the functions of a belief in God is to help restore order and a sense of control in situations in which low personal control is coupled with high anxiety (Laurin et al., 2008). Kinnvall (2004) has also asserted that as globalization increases, which some individuals experience as increased uncertainty and insecurity, and religious identity provides a sense of security that may result in individuals being increasingly drawn to a religious identity. Religion does serve a dual purpose, first by providing a coherent and accessible worldview that helps an individual maintain sense of control over random events, and also by providing a potent personal and social identity. Lumsden and Wilson (1983) assert that religion is one method through which individuals enter a group and through that association individuals have greater access to resources and social support, which fosters both physical and psychological well-being. Shared religious faith fosters a sense of collective and group unity, and through shared activities, such as religious ritual, the group strengthens their religious faith and positive evaluation of the group (Hood et al., 2009). In an


interview study, Cadge and Davidman (2006), examining religious identities of Thai Buddhists and American Jews, found that while religious identity for both groups was greatly influenced by conditions of birth, choosing to engage in rituals either historically associated with their religious identity or as a matter of religious practice were methods of maintaining their religious identity. In addition, Japanese participants in the Gion religious festival in Kyoto gain a stronger sense of community and build long-lasting social support networks (Roemer, 2007). So, a religious collective identity enables members to access the benefits of increased social support and community resources through ritual and practice associated with their religious identity. Research by Allport, Ross, and others (Allport & Ross, 1967; Baker & Gorshuch, 1982; Batson & Ventis, 1982; McFarland, 1989) has examined the distinction between extrinsic religious motivation, a drive to satisfy social or status needs, versus intrinsic religious motivation, faith for its own sake regardless of other benefits that may be derived. A commonly held belief about the distinction is the assumption that extrinsic religious motivation is nonnormative and of lesser value, whereas intrinsic religious motivation is normative and of higher value (Cohen, Hall, Koenig, & Meador, 2005). Researchers after Allport and Ross (1967) continue to argue that individuals who are motivated in part to belong to a religion to gain social support, identity, or status are not as advanced as members internally motivated to participate. More recently, however, Cohen et al. have argued that this distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religious motivation imposes an American, Protestant, and individualistic set of norms on what is “good” versus “bad” religious motivation. Flere and Lavrič (2008) in a survey of American Protestants, Slovenian Catholics, Serbian Orthodox, and Bosnian Muslims found support that the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religious motivation appears to be more strongly linked to American Protestants’ cultural beliefs than to those of any other religious group. The American Protestant tradition is characterized by individuals, either through conversion or free choice, entering their religious faith and is considered religion of ascent (Cohen et al., 2005; Morris, 1996, 1997). On the other hand, religious traditions such as Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Hinduism are considered religions of descent, or religions into which members are born (Cohen et al., 2005; Morris, 1996, 1997). Cohen et al. argue that religions of descent tend to be orientated toward fulfilling both the spiritual and social identity needs of its members but are not any less valuable than religious faiths characterized by higher levels of


intrinsic religious motivation. To minimize the power of religion in fulfilling important needs at both the level of the collective self and personal self, some of the primary benefits individuals gain from being member of a large religious collective have been ignored. Religion as Collective Brewer (1991), Brewer and Caporael (1990), Brewer and Chen (2007), and Brewer and Gardner (1996) have long argued that an important aspect of the self is the connection between the individual and the collective. The collective self, in comparison to the personal self, exemplifies the individual’s relationship to the group (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). The collective self represents an internalization of group norms and values by the individual, which act to guide cognition, behavior, and evaluation (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Additionally, Caporael (1997) argues that human cognition has in large part developed in order to take advantage of group living and interaction (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992). It could also be argued that the potency and longevity of large religious groups is in large part due to the inherently social nature of these collectives. Groups can be divided into a number of distinct categories, each acting in a different manner to shape an individual’s sense of self, guide behavior, and cognition (Caporael, 1997). The size of the group is one determining factor in this process, with dyadic relationship differing from membership in large collectives (Brewer & Caporael, 1990; Caporael, 1997). The major religious traditions (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) could be considered macrodemes, or a gathering of tribes, while individual congregations or communities represent demes, or tribes. Function is another factor that distinguishes groups from one another. Demes’ function is to create a shared reality or worldview, while marcodemes primarily work to standardize and coordinate language, which fosters a shared reality. The main reason why both a shared reality and language are essential to groups is that each increases the ability of the group to coordinate behavior in order to efficiently utilize the surrounding environment (Caporael, 1997). From this perspective, it is not just coincidence that three of the world’s major religious traditions (i.e., Judaism, Islam, Christianity) developed in the Middle East, where both water and arable land are scarce; such scarcity requires the suppression of self-interested motives and group coordination to maximize these resources. Caporael (1997) has argued that in order for members of relatively larger groups (i.e., demes and macrodemes) to enjoy the benefits of membership, such as access to mates, scarce resources, and security,


they must depend on a shared reality that is fostered by shared customs, rituals, and language. Shared reality is essential if large groups seek to efficiently coordinate behavior, and without it coordination in a nonface-to-face group would be difficult (Brewer & Caporael, 1990; Caporael, 1997). A religious worldview can unite individuals across other (e.g., racial and ethnic) dimensions, and such unity is fostered by shared rituals, artifacts, and language all of which lead to obligated interdependence between members (Caporael, 1997; Caporael & Brewer, 1995). Obligated interdependence occurs when members of a group depend on other members to perform certain tasks or provide resources that each member cannot perform or obtain efficiently as an individual (Caporael, 1997; Caporael & Brewer, 1995). A shared reality develops and is perpetuated in part through shared origin stories (Caporael, 1997). Each of the major religious traditions has a creation/origin myth that is passed from one generation to the next as a way of establishing a shared reality. In particular, creation/origin myths create a shared narrative past that is connected to the sacred and convey a group’s shared identity (Leeming & Leeming, 1994). For example, the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) all share the same origin story, which can be traced in part to the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish (Heidel, 1953). Well-developed customs and rituals instill and reaffirm the worldview of a particular religion. One form practiced by a variety of faiths is ritualistic public prayer. In the Jewish tradition, the minyan is the requirement for a certain number of adult Jews to be present during certain ritualized forms of public prayer (Ariel, 1995). The act of public prayer in Judaism helps to reinforce what it means to be Jewish, not just in terms of beliefs, but also in reaffirming the participants’ Jewish identity (Ariel, 1995; Cohen et al., 2005). The ritual of the Eucharist may serve a similar purpose in the Roman Catholic tradition, in which one’s beliefs are reiterated publicly as both an expression of belief and identity. The Adhan occurs around the world five time every day to call Muslims to prayer, after which Muslims all recite the same prayer in Arabic. In addition to ritualistic public prayer, a number of the world religions have some form of a public water ritual, which is used to purify members or to signify membership. In Judaism, it is the Mikveh, in Islam it is the Ghusl, and for Hindus it is the ritual of bathing in the Ganges or other sacred rivers; all are means of purifying either the body or the soul. In Christianity, baptism is a water ritual through which new members are initiated into the faith and purified of “original sin.” Whether it is through public prayer or religious ritual, individuals confirm their commitment to a particular collective. Public declaration of beliefs, for any religious


faith, probably thus serve the dual purpose of confirming of a shared reality while at the same time strengthening individuals’ religious identities. More generally, it is understood that conformity to norms and rituals helps to depersonalize the individuals, so they view themselves less as unitary and more as prototypical group members, which leads to a stronger social identification with the group (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherall, 1987). Although rituals and customs work to reinforce a religious worldview, shared tools and artifacts help to promote the religious worldview and to coordinate behavior (Caporael, 1997). Nearly each world religion has common artifacts that are present in places of worship, such as the Aron Kodesh/Hekhál or the vessel for holding the Torah in a Jewish temple/synagogue, or the Cross in Christian churches. The use of prayer wheels or beads is another example of a tool, which reinforces the religious worldview while coordinating behaviors across individuals. Ritual slaughter of animals for consumption also uses a standardized method and tools. For example, in both Judaic and Islamic traditions, meat labeled either as kosher or halal means that the animal was slaughtered in a particular manner. Specifically, a sharp knife is used to sever the major arteries and veins in the neck of the animal in order to reduce the pain and suffering of the animal. As Caporael (1997) argues, artifacts and tools act to link individual behaviors to a particular worldview. In modern society, Jews and Muslims who seek to maintain religious dietary laws rely on unknown religious group members to slaughter and butcher animals in accordance with either halal or kosher laws. The reliance on unknown group members to perform this task is an example of distributed cognition and specialization within group, which is an element of successful group coordination. Most interactions between group members occur at the level of a deme, or religious congregation. However, during religious festivals and holidays, congregations gather together (either in the same physical space or virtually) to form macrodemes. Participation in religious festivals and holidays provides members with increased access to resources and reaffirms the shared worldview and language, in addition to promoting social affinity between members (Bose, 2006; Caporael, 1997). Every year at least 2 million Muslims from around the world complete the pilgrimage to Mecca, or the Hajj. Pilgrims, or Hajji, benefit from an increased sense of unity with other Muslims, and it strengthens their common Muslim identity despite diverse national and ethnic backgrounds (Clingingsmith, Khwaja, & Kremer, 2009). The Hajj has historically also increased trade opportunities across the Muslim world and fostered the exchange of economic and scientific


ideas (Bose, 2006; Clingingsmith et al., 2009). In the Hindu tradition, the Diwali/Deepavali festival, or the festival of lights, is one of the most important and largest Hindu holidays, which is celebrated worldwide. Diwali is traditionally held in conjunction with markets and fairs, at which both goods are exchanged and marriages are arranged between the members of different congregations. At religious festivals, such as the Hajj, macrodemes are able to perform one of their primary functions, which is the promotion of linguistic standardization and affinity. Linguistic affinity is essential in preserving a common religious worldview and identity (Caporael, 1997). Arabic is the common language of Muslims, and for Muslims, their holy book, the Quran, is not considered to be the true Quran unless it is in the original Arabic (Mohammed, 2005). Muslims aspire to be able to read or listen to the Quran in its original Arabic and strive to learn at least enough Arabic to do so (Mohammed, 2005). In addition, regardless of local language, the Adhan is traditionally recited in Arabic around the world. By unifying the language of the sacred text and ritualized prayer, Muslims have maintained at least some linguistic affinity for 1.3 billion people worldwide. Hebrew serves a similar purpose for Jews, in that it unites Jews across ethnic and national boundaries (Ben-Rafael, 1994). However, Hebrew, unlike Arabic, has not historically been as consistently used as spoken language between Jews. Hebrew, prior to the founding of Israel in 1948, was primarily restricted in some Jewish communities as a holy language for use in prayer and religious ceremonies and for literary purposes (Ben-Rafael, 1994). But with the founding of the state of Israel, Hebrew has evolved into a modern language that is increasingly used by Jews worldwide as a spoken language beyond its historically religious and literary uses (Ben-Rafael, 1994). This has worked to unify Jews both in Israel and around the world and to reinforce a shared religious identity among an ethnically/racially diverse group. Ulpans, or free institutes for learning Hebrew, were initiated soon after the founding of Israel in order to promote a unified national language. By strongly encouraging modern Hebrew language education of new Jewish immigrants to Israel, Israel has purposefully used language to reinforce a common Jewish worldview and identity (Ben-Rafael, 1994). It is a modern example of how language can be used by a large collective group to foster a group identity, increase the ability to share information, and ultimately promote group coordination and dependence. Shared ritual, customs, festivals, and language all developed in order for groups to maintain a shared worldview. Religions across thousands of years have been particularly good at maintaining a coherent


worldview that unites members and fulfills social identity needs. One of the primary purposes of group living is to promote efficient use of the surrounding environment by suppressing individual self-interest in favor of group-level outcomes (Caporael, 1997). If each individual seeks to maximize outcomes and resource just for the self, the environment would suffer and eventually so would the individual. But by combining efforts across multiple individuals, the group is able to take better advantage of available resources. Caporael (1997) asserts that as a result of group living, a system of obligated interdependence develops, in which individuals depend on the group and other group members to provide necessary resources, reproductive mates, and other services not achievable at the individual level, such as security and protection. Religions have developed over time to help provide these resources and services, in addition to institutionalizing obligated interdependence to other group members. In Islam, there is a Quran-mandated obligation to all Muslims. Muslims are obligated and responsible for the Ummah, or the world community of Muslims. The clearest demonstration of this obligation occurs during the Hajj, when Muslims from around the world mingle and depend on one another for the successful completion of the Hajj (Clingingsmith et al., 2009). The book of Vayikra (or Leviticus) of the Torah mandates that all Jews are obligated to all other Jews regardless of ethnic or racial background. A modern example of this obligation can be seen in the Israeli-assisted mass exodus of Ethiopian Jews to Israel in May 1991. In Operation Solomon, more than 14,000 Ethiopian Jews were transported to Israel over 36 hours. At least one plane carried more than 1,000 passengers. When the pilot of the plane (a Jew of European descent) was asked why he did this despite the plane’s carrying capacity of 500, he was quoted as saying, “It’s okay. I don’t want to leave any of my people behind” (Rosenthal, 2003). To summarize, the major religious traditions of the world function as large collectives, or macrodemes, composed of individual congregations, or demes. Religions are inherently social, and members derive multiple benefits from religion, which fulfill both spiritual and social needs. Based on the previous analysis, it can be argued that ignoring or demoting the social aspects of religion can reduce the richness and complexity of our understanding of religion and its power in members’ lives. But in addition to religion satisfying spiritual and social needs, religion helps an individual to fulfill some basic individual needs. Religion as Source of Collective Self Brewer and colleagues have stressed the importance of understanding not only the unitary individual self but how the self is influenced


and defined by relationships to others and groups. The personal self is how the individual differs from others, is characterized by individual uniqueness and personal responsibility, and is motivated by self-interest. The relational self is motivated by interdependence with close others, who define the self, and dictates a responsiveness to others’ needs and concerns. Finally, the collective self is a “depersonalized self” that is defined by membership in large collective groups and has a significant impact on an individual’s self-concept, self-evaluation, and beliefs/values (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Turner et al., 1987). For a substantial portion of the world’s population, religion can thus serve as a basis for the collective self. “I see being Jewish as… it’s something I’ve been born into so it’s who I am as a person” (Cadge & Davidman, 2006, p. 27). Being Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, or Buddhist provides individuals with a sense of self and becomes a way to define the collective self. By connecting the self to a larger collective, an individual extends beyond the unitary self to the collective self (Brewer, 1991). Terror management theory proposes that one reason we may be motivated to extend the self to the collective is the belief the group will continue after our death and thus in some form we will continue (Vail et al., 2010). In addition, most religions provide an explanation for what happens after death, thus religion is a particularly potent collective self (Vail et al., 2010). The level of identification with the group and the degree of self/ collective overlap will dictate the degree to which an individual will view the world through the collective worldview. Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, and Eidelson (2008) contend that an individual can identify with a group in multiple ways, including through importance, deference, commitment, and superiority. Religion can serve as an important aspect of the self, demand deference to norms and values, expect self-sacrifice from members, and promote its worldview as the true and right path (Wellman & Tokuno, 2004). When individuals attach to or are born into a religion, the individual may extend the self to include the religion’s collective identity, and shift from I to we, and thus the individual sees the group as an important aspect of the self. As the self extends to the collective, we will seek to conform our attitudes and behavior so that we are an exemplar of the group (Turner et al., 1987). Ensuring conformity to religious norms and behavior because of the moral implications is particularly important to members of a religious collective. Saroglou and colleagues (Saroglou & Dupuis, 2006; Saroglou & Hanique, 2006) have demonstrated that members with high investment in their religious tradition (e.g., Buddhism or Judaism) were more likely to value tradition and


conformity. In addition to valuing conformity to religious collective norms and values, individuals will internalize religious expectations for the individual’s behavior and values. Emmons’ (2005) research on the relationship between personal goal striving and religion/spirituality demonstrates that when individuals internalize religious goals, their importance to the self increases. Deference is a particularly important aspect of religious group identification since it is the amount of honor and respect one has for a group’s norms, values, and leaders. Members of a religious collective demonstrate, through public prayer or ritual, deference for the values and beliefs associated with their religious faith. In addition, a number of the major religious tradition leaders are not only leaders for their own faith, but they are also viewed as world leaders; for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Roman Catholic Pope, and the Dalai Lama. A rejection of criticism about the group is another aspect of deference. Wellman and Tokuno (2004) argue that one of the primary motivators of religious faith and identity is that religion claims to be true. They continue by saying that whether implicit religious truth, rituals, and practice are normal, thus real, or explicit religious truth, which is defended against other claims, neither can be disconfirmed. The inability of religious truth claims to be disconfirmed heightens members’ faith and belief and willingness to defend against individuals or groups that oppose the group (Wellman & Tokuno, 2004). Religious group members, as well as group members in general, make intergroup comparisons in order to confirm their belief/attitude that their religion is superior to others. If memberships in collectives is a source of information about the social self, the individuals will then seek to evaluate the social self, as they do aspects of the personal self. Intergroup comparison is one way in which individuals will assess their group and understand the collective self. Although intergroup comparison and beliefs that one’s religious faith is superior to other faiths occurs in less extreme members, fundamentalists of any faith demonstrate the extremity of this behavior (Herriot, 2009). Religious fundamentalists act in an extreme manner not only to separate themselves from others but also to reinforce their own beliefs (Herriot, 2009). Herriot (2009) cites the example of the schism between Fundamentalist Christians and Pentecostal Christians, in which Fundamentalists claim superiority because Pentecostals are seen as driven by emotions and lacking intellectual rigor. Wellman and Tokuno (2004) cite the many examples of a religious community successfully resisting the larger political force, mostly in reaction to seeing their worldview or tradition as superior and worth preserving.


For any member of the religious collective, a certain level of commitment, or willingness to work to benefit the group even if this involves self-sacrifice, is necessary (Roccas et al., 2008). Tithing, or standardized contribution based on a percentage of personal income, a practice common for both Roman Catholics and Mormons, is a demonstration of commitment. When a religious group member is committed, they will shift their focus from self-interest to the welfare of the collective. This is demonstrated most clearly in the obligated interdependence that exists between Muslims and Jews as mandated by each groups’ religious text. If an individual has a high level of identification with a religious collective, he/she will also benefit by satisfying a number of fundamental human needs. Religion, as a large collective, can satisfy a number of fundamental individual needs and motivations. First, large collectives are able to provide what an individual cannot provide for him or herself, such as a coherent worldview, access to resources and mates, and security. Religion provides a sense of self and extends the self to the collective. Another need that large collectives fulfill is the need to belong, a primary human motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The need to belong is fulfilled when an individual is able to have ongoing interpersonal contact that is marked by affective concern (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Brewer (1991) has argued that membership in a macrodeme/ collective can help satisfy the need to belong, but if the collective is too large, an individual will be motivated to be more distinct. Although large religious affiliations, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hindu, fulfill an individual’s need to belong, these groups challenge an individual’s need to be distinct. Given this within most of the world’s major religions, there are smaller groups, which may differ, based on orthodoxy (e.g., Hasidic or Hassidim Jews versus Orthodox Jews), historical differences (e.g., Shia versus Sunni), or matters of practice (e.g., Roman Catholics versus Baptists). In addition, even smaller face-to-face groups, which constitute demes or congregations, have developed to provide the necessary continuing interpersonal contact and support required in order to fulfill the need to belong. So, while people identify with the larger religious groups, membership in different sects, denominations, or congregations is more likely to fulfill both distinctiveness and belongingness needs. Social identity theory argues that another important individual process that groups serve is self-evaluation. Self-evaluation, in this context, depends on how well an individual is able to assimilate to the group prototype. Religion, unlike other large collectives, provides the individual with a dominant schema for social, political, and personal beliefs


and behaviors (McIntosh, 1995; Ozorak, 2005). Members will strive to assimilate their beliefs and behavior to this dominant schema and will evaluate themselves based on the degree of overlap. In-group identity verification is a form of self-verification that is indicative of the degree of self/group overlap and occurs when an individual is committed/invested in a collective (Gomez, Seyle, Huici, & Swann, 2009). Self-verification allows the individual to validate qualities of the unitary self, whereas in-group identity verification permits an individual to verify collective qualities, including ones they do not personally possess (Gomez et al., 2009). Gomez et al. argue that individuals seek to verify in-group characteristics they do not possess in part because by doing so they are able to remain part of the group, fulfilling belonging needs, but by verifying qualities they do not share with the group, they remain distinct (Brewer, 1991). Although religion does provide a complete worldview and prescribed behaviors for members, members will not always ascribe every religious belief or prescribed behavior nor will they all be important or central to the self. American Catholics, for example, tend to be more liberal on average regarding birth control, divorce, and other issues than the main Roman Catholic Church. So, while American Catholics benefit from belonging to the world’s Catholic community and evaluate the self based on assimilation to the group and shared qualities, they also benefit from the distinction between themselves and the main church.

CONCLUSION Religious collectives are well suited for fulfilling multiple functions and needs for religious group members. Religion provides a coherent worldview that provides a sense of control in a random and chaotic world (Kay et al., 2009) and an explanation for life after death (Vail et al., 2010). Religious collectives can serve all the functions of demes/macrodemes and provide a sense of identity to its members. Religious collectives and smaller congregations satisfy the need to belong, whereas an individual can maintain his/her uniqueness. But the question remains: is religion a special case, or a more potent form, of identity in comparison to national or ethnic identity, or other forms of collective identity? Religion is unique in comparison to other collective identities in a number of ways, including the longevity of religious collectives, and in providing a meaning in an individual’s life (and, maybe more importantly, his or her death) that exceeds most other meaning systems, including political ideologies, or other meaning systems. The major religious collectives of the world, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, among others,


have existed and sustained group members for over a thousand years. Political ideologies over this same time frame have shifted and changed dramatically, sometimes within an individual’s lifetime. But most importantly, it appears that religion provides meaning to the individual that helps the individual to maintain a sense of meaning and order in an otherwise chaotic system, in a way that political or other cultural meaning systems do not. Research on terror management theory (Vail et al., 2010) provides a most definitive answer to this question, in that religion or belief in a supernatural power does have a more powerful effect in reducing the fear of death than any other form of secular identity. Clearly, research on how religion impacts all levels of the self, personal, relational, and collective, is needed to fully answer this question.

REFERENCES Abed-Kotob, S. (1995). The accommodations speak: Goals and strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27, 321–339. Allport, G. W., & Ross, M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. Ariel, D. S. (1995). What do Jews believe? The spiritual foundations of Judaism. New York: Schocken Books. Baker, M., & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and intrinsic-extrinsic religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 119–122. Batson, D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Ben-Rafael, E. (1994). Language, identity, and social division: The case of Israel. New York: Oxford University Press. Bose, S. (2006). A hundred horizons: The Indian Ocean in the age of global empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. (1990). Selfish genes vs. selfish people: Sociobiology as origin myth. Motivation and Emotion, 14(4), 237–243. Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1), 133–151. Brewer, M. B., & Garnder, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.


Cadge, W., & Davidman, L. (2006). Ascription, choice, and the construction of religious identities in the contemporary United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(1), 23–38. Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 276–298. Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1995). Hierarchical evolutionary theory: There is an alternative, and it’s not creationism. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 31–34. Clingingsmith, D., Khwaja, A. I., & Kremer, M. (2009). Estimating the impact of the Hajj: Religion and tolerance in Islam’s global gathering. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1133–1170. Cohen, A. B, Hall, D. E., Koening, H. G., & Meador, K. G. (2005). Social versus individual motivation: implications for normative definitions of religious orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 48–61. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press. Durkheim, E. 1915. The elementary forms of the religious life. London: George Allen and Unwin. Emmons, R. A. (2005). Striving for the sacred: Personal goals, life meaning, and religion. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 731–745. Flere, S., & Lavrič, M. (2008). Is intrinsic religious orientation a cultural specific American Protestant concept? The fusion of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation among non-Protestants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 521–530. Gomez, A., Seyle, D. C., Huici, C., & Swann, W. B. (2009). Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self–other barrier? Seeking verification of in-group identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1021–1044. Heidel, A. (1953). The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herriot, P. (2009). Religious fundamentalism: Global, local, and personal. New York: Psychology Press. Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed.). New York: Guliford Press. Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264–268. Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741–767. Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Moscovitch, D. A. (2008). On the belief in God: Towards an understanding of the emotional substrates of compensatory control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1559–1562.

160 • Ann C. Rumble Leeming, D. A., & Leeming, M. A. (1994). Encyclopedia of creation myths. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Lumsden, C., & Wilson, E. (1983). Promethean fire: Reflections on the origin of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 69–93. McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientations and targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 324–336. McIntosh, D. N. (1995). Religion as schema, with implications for the relation between religion and coping. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 5, 1–16. Mohammed, K. (2005). Assessing English translation of the Qur’an. Middle East Quarterly, 12, 58–71. Morris, P. (1996). Detraditionalization: Critical reflections on authority and identity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Morris, P. (1997). Communities of assent and descent. Journal of the New Zealand Council of Christians and Jews, 3, 2–4. Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science, 322, 58–62. Ozorak, E. W. (2005). Cognitive approaches to religion. In R. Paloutzian & C. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion (pp. 216–235). New York: Guilford. Pargament, K. I., Magyar-Russell, G. M., & Murray-Swank, N. A. (2005). The sacred and the search for significance: Religion as a unique process. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 665–687. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008). U.S. landscape survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 280–306. Roemer, M. K. (2007). Ritual participation and social support in a major Japanese festival. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 185–200. Rosenthal, D. (2003). The Israelis: Ordinary people in an extraordinary land. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc. Russell, B. (1952). The impact of science on society. New York: Routledge. Saroglou, V., & Hanique, B. (2006). Jewish identity, values, and religion in a globalized world: A study of late adolescents. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6(3), 231–249. Saroglou, V., & Dupuis, J. (2006). Being Buddhist in Western Europe: Cognitive needs, prosocial character, and values. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16(3), 163–179. Swenson, D. (1999). Society, spirituality and the sacred: A social scientific introduction. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.


Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Vail, K. E., Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 84–94. Wellman, J. K., & Tokuno, K. (2004). Is religious violence inevitable? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(3), 291–296. Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71. Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. Paloutzian & C. Park (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 21–42). New York: Guilford Press.

9 INTERGROUP RELATIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY In-Group Positivity and Out-Group Negativity Among Members of an Internet Hate Group Karen Gonsalkorale and William von Hippel

I remember one day I woke up quite happy and then went to my local shopping mall. And there I saw a teenage nigger holding hand with a teenage blonde girl. I still remember the disgust and anger I felt rising within me. But things got worse. Just a few minutes later I saw a quite beautiful blonde woman about 25–30 years old walking together with a really ape-like nigger and a 3–4 year old mulatto kid walking between them. The horror, anger, and disgust I felt at that moment was incredible. It’s seeing those kind of disgusting things that motivate me to fight for our cause. (Anonymous, 1999b) Life in the ‘kingdom of the Jews’ ain’t it wunnerful!!!!! Our Race and Nation are flying down the highway of life at 120 mph and the treacherous Jew is in the driver’s seat, while we (The white Race) haggle amongst ourselves over what the other PASSENGERS (The non-Jewish Races) are doing….. ‘The hell with the Jew driver man, we’ll beat-up on this clown next me, who’s in the same sorry situation as we are…..!’ Think, my white brothers and sisters. Our Race and Culture are in a life and death struggle with the Jews, and no one else but the Jews….. Anything, or anyone, who takes our

163

164 • Karen Gonsalkorale and William von Hippel

focus off THEM is knowingly or unknowingly being manipulated by our Jewish commissars. Wer kennt den Jude kennt den Teufel (Whoever knows the Jew knows the Devil). (Anonymous, 1999c) Sometimes I feel like one of the early Christians in the Roman Empire. Like us they had to sneak around, underground, preaching their message with the constant fear of being caught out and fed to the lions. I wonder if the people in this movement will be looked back on as the saviours of the white race in another 2,000 years, or just a bunch of paronoid outcasts. (Anonymous, 1999a) Although prejudice and stereotyping are ubiquitous in modern American society, most individuals hold strong beliefs in egalitarianism that prevent them from being openly hostile toward members of other groups. Indeed, theories of modern prejudice are based on the notion that prejudice must be rationalized in some way to avoid conflict with deeply held values of fairness (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991; Kinder & Sears, 1981). Nevertheless, there are still a small percentage of individuals who cling to old-fashioned prejudices and believe that other races are inferior to whites. Until recently, individuals who hold such beliefs were becoming increasingly isolated, as their viewpoints were not socially sanctioned and to express them in public was to risk attack, rejection, and sometimes legal or other official penalties. With the advent of the Internet, however, cyber groups of every sort have proliferated, and members of hate groups now have a forum in which they can communicate freely with like-minded individuals. The quotations that begin this chapter are from members of one such group, Stormfront, which is something of a World Wide Web clearinghouse for racist groups and white pride organizations. Stormfront was the first major racist group to take advantage of the web (Schafer, 2002), and it remains a very popular site, with over 150,000 members and over 200,000 page views every day. Almost half of Stormfront’s visitors are from the United States, with the remainder predominantly from Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, and Belgium. Internet groups such as Stormfront are effective in their provision of social support and a virtual community for people with extreme racist views, as they enable such individuals to circumvent the social awkwardness that might accompany attempts to identify whether another person is a white supremacist. Because social support for their beliefs causes prejudiced individuals to become even more prejudiced (Wittenbrink & Henley,

Intergroup Relations in the 21st Century • 165

1996), Internet hate sites have the potential to exacerbate the social problems posed by racist organizations. The goal of this chapter is to describe the research that we have conducted with Marilynn Brewer on members of Stormfront. So little is known about the psychology underlying membership in such groups that the current research is largely exploratory, with the primary goal being assessment of the relative dominance of in-group enhancement versus out-group derogation among members of such groups. In “normal” populations, in-group bias is primarily a function of in-group positivity rather than out-group negativity (Brewer, 1979, 1999, 2001). Certain circumstances can lead to derogation of outgroups, such as threat to the in-group (Judd & Park, 1988; Stephan & Stephan, 2000), but most groups engage in in-group favoritism far more than out-group derogation. Moreover, contrary to the idea that in-group positivity is reciprocally related to out-group negativity (e.g., Sumner, 1906), in-group favoritism tends to be independent of out-group derogation. At this point, it is unknown whether in-group positivity predominates and is independent of out-group negativity among members of hate groups. As can be seen in the opening quotations, members of such groups appear to feel very threatened by miscegenation with African Americans and perceived Jewish control of the media and government. If these threats are experienced chronically, it is possible that out-group negativity may be more common than in-group positivity among white supremacist organizations. Under conditions of chronic perceived threat, in-group positivity might also become coupled with out-group negativity, with increases in one associated with increases in the other. To test these possibilities, the current research analyzed messages from Stormfront’s online discussion forum. Stormfront is ideal for the current research purposes for several reasons. First, its members pride themselves on their intellectualism, and they prohibit any discussion of violence on the website. Second, each discussion thread is presented as a separate entity, which can be read or responded to independent of other discussion threads. Additionally, each thread is listed under the subject header that was used by the person who initiated the thread. Finally, next to each subject header is a pair of numbers indicating how many people have viewed the message and how many have responded to it. Thus, it is possible to quantify the interest level generated by each topic, at the level of both viewing and responding. We took advantage of these features to assess the types of messages that were read and responded to most frequently, and whether people were more likely to read and write in-group-enhancing messages or out-group-derogating messages. The relationships among in-group positivity, out-group negativity, and intergroup threat were examined via content analysis of the messages.


Here we report two separate studies. In Study 1, conducted in collaboration with Mark Polifroni, we posted messages on the discussion forum to examine how members of Stormfront would respond to different types of in-group positivity, out-group negativity, and intergroup threat. The content of the posted messages was manipulated such that it emphasized in-group positivity or one of two types of out-group negativity and intergroup threat (miscegenation vs. media control). In Study 2, instead of posting messages to the group, we simply downloaded and content analyzed a large number of messages from the discussion forum to gain a representative sample of the key concerns of Stormfront members.

STUDY 1 Method Six messages were initially posted on the discussion forum. These messages represented three message types—miscegenation, white supremacy, or media control—and focused on blacks or Jews as the target out-group. Two messages discussed miscegenation (one focused on black–white miscegenation and one on Jewish–white miscegenation), two messages discussed white supremacy (one claimed superiority of whites over blacks and one claimed superiority of whites over Jews), and two messages discussed media control (one alleged Jewish control of the media and one alleged black control of the media). The messages were designed to be prototypic examples of the types of messages that are frequently sent by group members on these three topics, with the notable exception of the black control message, as blacks are portrayed by group members as mindless foot soldiers in the race war rather than clever manipulators. Preliminary examination of the number of views and replies for each message type suggested that the miscegenation messages appeared to generate considerable interest, whereas the white supremacy messages generated little interest. To ensure that this difference was not a function of the time the messages happened to be sent to the group, 5 months later we sent another black–white miscegenation message, Jewish–white miscegenation message, and white-over-black supremacy message to the group. Once the message threads were no longer receiving any additional views or responses, frequency counts were obtained for the number of people who viewed the messages and the number who responded. All responses were then downloaded and coded for the presence or absence of in-group positivity, out-group negativity, racial slurs, threat, positive emotion, and negative emotion. Definitions and examples of the categories are presented in Table 9.1. Positivity toward two in-groups and negativity toward three out-groups were examined. The first and most obvious

Intergroup Relations in the 21st Century • 167 Table 9.1 Definitions and Examples of Coded Categories Category In-group positivity

Out-group negativity

Racial slur

Threat

Positive emotion

Negative emotion

Definition/Description

Example

Any positive sentiment about whites as a whole, or racially aware whites specifically. Any negative sentiment about minorities (non-whites, homosexuals, etc.), race traitors, or liberals and communists. Any disparaging term used to refer to a person’s ethnic or racial group. This was used as another indicator of out-group negativity. Any mention of group threats, including references to threat of invasion and threat of control by other races. Fear of individual out-group members was not included in this definition of group threat. Expression of positive emotion. Positive emotion could be directed at the group level or the individual level as long as the object of emotion was an in-group or an in-group member. Expression of negative emotion. Negative emotion could be directed at the group level or the individual level as long as the object of emotion was an out-group or an out-group member.

“[The white race is] a healthy, strong, vibrant, cutting-edge race” “I have the serious displeasure of work [sic] with a stereotypical black guy” “Muds,” “groids,” “wigger” (short for “white nigger”)

“We are suppressed [by American Jews], and in a foreign environment, increasingly hostile to our ways”

“White pride is what I say, white pride is what I think, white pride is what I know, white pride is what I’m thought, white pride means the world” “:mad:WARNING: B!tch commencing. I just found out that my wonderful Oma invited not only my cousin’s fiance (a nigger), but also his extended family for Thanksgiving!”


in-group was whites. “Racially aware” whites was the second in-group as some white supremacists appear to restrict their in-group to those who support the white pride movement. Included in this category were followers of religions such as Christian Identity, which are often incorporated into the ideology of white supremacist movements (Dobratz, 2001; Etter, 1999, 2002; Tourish & Wohlforth, 2000). Although religion is not part of Stormfront’s official ideology, one of the forums is devoted to religion. Minorities (blacks, Jews, homosexuals, etc.) were the first out-group target. The second out-group was “race traitors.” This group includes whites who do not support the white pride movement and who may identify with popular black culture (a phenomenon that Yousman, 2003, has termed blackophilia). The third out-group was composed of liberals and communists. Although it is possible that many of these people might be minorities or race traitors, most of the time this information was unavailable. For this reason, liberals and communists were given a separate category. Outgroup negativity and racial slurs—which have been shown to promote exclusion of out-groups (e.g., Leader, Mullen, & Rice, 2009)—were used as two separate indicators of the same general construct (i.e., out-group derogation). Positive and negative emotions were conceptualized as emotional responses to (members of) in-groups and out-groups, rather than as evidence of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Only the body of messages was coded, that is, statements or quotes appearing in the poster’s signature were ignored as these typically did not change as a function of the message posted. Additionally, if a poster quoted someone who had mentioned any of the categories, and stated their agreement with the quote, then this message was also coded as the categories being present. However, the categories were coded as absent if the poster simply provided a quote without commenting on it (some posters routinely incorporated the material from earlier posts in their replies and some did not). Results Views and Replies We noted the number of times each of the nine messages was viewed and responded to. Mean scores were then calculated for each of the three message types. The average number of views was highest for the miscegenation messages (M = 118.50, SD = 51.55). The white supremacy messages (M = 67.33, SD = 27.59) and the media control messages (M = 62.50, SD = 9.19) received similar numbers of views. Replies were highest for the miscegenation messages (M = 9.75, SD = 6.18), followed by the media control messages (M = 4.50, SD = 4.95) and the white supremacy messages (M = .67, SD = 1.15). Mean views and replies were also calculated according to whether the out-group target was blacks or Jews. Collapsed over topic, messages with black targets


received more views (M = 97.00, SD = 55.38) and replies (M = 7.00, SD = 7.48) than messages with Jewish targets (M = 79.00, SD = 31.02 views and M = 3.75, SD = 3.59 replies). These frequency counts suggest that the Stormfront members were most interested in the miscegenation topics and messages with black targets. Coding Seven of the nine threads received replies, yielding a total of 50 messages. One message was deleted as it was written by an out-group member who stated that he was proud of his mixed racial heritage. Two independent raters coded the remaining 49 messages for the presence or absence of in-group positivity, out-group negativity, threat, positive emotion, negative emotion, and racial slur. There was generally good agreement between the two raters, with kappa’s coefficients for each category as follows: in-group positivity = .88, out-group negativity = .61, threat = .87, positive emotion = .66, negative emotion = .64, and racial slur = .96. Disagreements were resolved via discussion. Whenever a message contained in-group positivity or out-group negativity, the target was also coded. For in-group positivity, the targets were whites and “racially aware” whites. For out-group negativity, the targets were minorities, race traitors, and liberals and communists. The data were analyzed at the message level, and if a particular individual contributed more than one message to a thread, only the first message from this person was included in the analyses. Moreover, among people who posted across multiple threads, only one message was analyzed. In such cases, a coin toss was used to determine which message to retain. Of the 39 message posters, 31 people posted 1 message, 6 people posted 2 messages, and 2 people posted 3 messages. A total of 39 messages were retained for analysis. Table 9.2 presents the frequencies of the coded categories as a function of message type. Frequencies of in-group positivity and out-group negativity are presented separately for each target and as composite scores collapsed across in-group or out-group targets. It can be seen that responders mentioned out-group negativity, threats, and racial slurs more frequently than they indicated in-group positivity, positive emotions, and negative emotions. Expressions of in-group positivity were particularly infrequent. Phi correlations between the coded categories for the 39 messages are presented in Table 9.3. None of the correlations between in-group positivity and out-group negativity were significant. Messages with references to threat tended to contain racial slurs and out-group negativity toward minorities, although the latter relationship was only marginally significant. Out-group negativity toward minorities was

170 • Karen Gonsalkorale and William von Hippel Table 9.2 Frequencies of the Coded Categories as a Function of Message Type, Study 1 Frequency (%) Coded Category In-group positivity (whites) In-group positivity (racially aware) In-group positivity (composite) Out-group negativity (minorities) Out-group negativity (race traitors) Out-group negativity (liberals) Out-group negativity (composite) Racial slur Threat Positive emotion Negative emotion

Miscegenation (N = 29)

White Pride (N = 2)

Media Control (N = 8)

Total (N = 39)

3 (10.34)

0 (0)

1 (12.50)

4 (10.26)

2 (5.13)

0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (5.13)

5 (17.24)

0 (0)

1 (12.50)

6 (15.38)

12 (41.3)

1 (50.00)

4 (50.00)

17 (43.59)

16 (55.17)

0 (0)

2 (25.00)

18 (46.15)

0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (25.00)

2 (5.13)

28 (96.55)

1 (50.00)

8 (100.00)

37 (94.87)

13 (44.83) 14 (48.27) 2 (6.90) 4 (13.79)

1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 0 (0) 0 (0)

4 (50.00) 6 (75.00) 0 (.00) 2 (25.00)

18 (46.15) 21 (53.85) 2 (5.13) 6 (15.38)

correlated with racial slurs. In-group positivity toward racially aware whites was significantly correlated with positive emotions. Discussion Despite the fact that their motto is “white pride world wide,” Stormfront members appear to be focused more on out-group negativity than on in-group positivity. Stormfront members were more likely to read messages about miscegenation than white supremacy and more likely to reply to messages about miscegenation (and to a lesser degree media control) than messages about white supremacy. Irrespective of the topic

.07

.18

.33*

.25

.06

−.07

.58**

.02

O− (RT)e

.03

.30†

.55**

.26†

−.09

O− (M)d

.02

.22

−.05

.22

.15

O− (L)f

b

a

.24

.11

.15

.22

O− (c)g

I+ (W) = positivity toward whites I+ (RA) = positivity toward racially aware whites c I+ (c) = composite indicator of in-group positivity (collapsed across target of in-group positivity) d O− (M) = negativity toward minorities e O− (RT) = negativity toward race traitors f O− (L) = negativity toward liberals and communists g O− (c) = composite indicator of out-group negativity (collapsed across target of out-group negativity) h Thr = threat i Em+ = positive emotion j Em− = negative emotion **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .10

−.05

−.22

.03

Slur

−.16

−.14

Em−

.26

.20

−.10

−.09

−.05

−.03

I+ (c)c

−.10

.47**

−.16

O− (c)

−.08

−.08

O− (L)

Em+

.15

−.14

O− (RT)

.22

.25

−.05

.04

O− (M)

.14

.03

.88**

I+ (c)

Thr

.61**

.31†

I+ (RA)b

I+ (RA)

I+ (W)a

Table 9.3 Phi Correlations between the Coded Categories (N = 39), Study 1

.34*

.25

.22

Thrh

.02

.22

Em+i

.03

Em−j



discussed in the messages we sent, Stormfront members also mentioned out-group negativity, threats, and racial slurs more often than in-group positivity in their replies. Out-group negativity occurred in almost all of the replies, and threats and racial slurs were evident in almost half. In sum, Stormfront members showed relatively little interest in reading about in-group positivity and the messages they wrote tended to be derogatory of out-groups. The correlational analyses revealed no evidence of a reciprocal relationship between in-group positivity and out-group negativity. However, racial slurs were positively correlated with threat and outgroup negativity toward minorities, indicating that racially derogatory terms were more likely to be used when issues surrounding threat and negativity toward minorities were being discussed. Thus, the data from this study suggest that group identity for Stormfront members is organized around out-group negativity, particularly toward minorities, and the threat posed by these groups for the in-group. The focus on outgroup negativity observed in this study is in stark contrast to findings that intergroup bias is typically a function of in-group positivity rather than out-group negativity (e.g., Brewer, 1979, 1999, 2001). Although this study had the advantage of control over the label and content of the messages sent to the group, our conclusions are limited by the small sample size. The sample size also precluded analysis of the data at the thread level, which would decrease the dependency between cases that exists in the current message-level analysis. To overcome these issues, a large sample of messages members of Stormfront sent to each other was downloaded from the discussion forum and coded in Study 2.

STUDY 2 The aims of Study 2 were to examine whether the predominance of outgroup negativity found in Study 1 would replicate and whether a relationship between in-group positivity and out-group negativity would emerge in a larger more representative sample. The downloaded threads were coded as in-group related, out-group related, blended, or neither. Those threads that were relevant to the in-group, out-group, or both, were then content coded. The larger samples used in Study 2 have the advantage that they are more likely to be representative of the population, but they are also more likely to produce significant correlations that explain little variance. As outlined below, steps were taken to examine relationships in a manner that would be both representative and conservative.


Method As it would be immensely time-consuming to examine the contents of Stormfront’s entire discussion forum, a subsection was sampled. The home page of the forum contains several sections (e.g., “Activism”), each listing several superordinate topic areas (e.g., “Ideology and Philosophy”) from which the discussion threads are accessed. Discusion threads for Study 2 were drawn from the 34 superordinate topics in the “General”, “Open”, and “Activism” sections. The other sections, including “Suggestions and Frequently Asked Questions” (typically dealing with technical issues in accessing the site) and “White Singles,” were considered irrelevant to the study. Only threads from the first page of each superordinate topic were downloaded. There was no restriction on the length of the threads, and a total of 1,052 threads were downloaded. Each thread was coded as being related to the in-group, out-group, neither, or both. In many cases, the title was an unambiguous indicator of which category subsumed the thread. However, the first message of the thread was occasionally inconsistent with the information conveyed by the title. For example, in the “Movie Reviews” section, many threads were named after the movie being reviewed. Although almost none of the movie names were related to the in-group or out-group, it often became apparent from the thread’s first message that the movie was being reviewed because the writer thought it was relevant to the in-group or out-group. Thus, coding was based on (a) the thread’s title and (b) the first page of the thread’s first message. The aim of this twopronged coding was to identify all threads that were relevant to the intergroup context. Threads that were related to the in-group, out-group, or both were selected for further coding. In the current study, only the first message that had content that could be coded was examined. The rationale for examining the first message of each thread was that it likely reflects what Stormfront members think will be of interest to the group. This methodology also ensured relative independence of cases as only one message was coded from each thread. Results Thread Type According to the title coding, 278 (26.43%) threads were in-group related, 106 (10.08%) were out-group related, 48 (4.56%) were blended (i.e., related to both the in-group and the out-group), and 620 (58.94%) were unrelated to the in-group or out-group. The first message codings revealed that 384 (36.50%) threads were in-group related, 110 (10.46%) were out-group related, 188 (17.87%) were blended, and


370 (35.17%) were unrelated to the intergroup context. Although there was moderate overlap between the title and message codings (Cramer’s V = .50, p < .001), more messages were identified as relevant to the in-group, out-group, or both at the message level than at the title level. Based on a combined coding system, a total of 690 threads (65.59%) were related to the in-group, out-group, or both. Views and Replies On average, threads (N = 690) that were related to the in-group, out-group, or both received more views (M = 1451.59, SD = 9194.67) and replies (M = 36.26, SD = 146.99) than threads (N = 362) that were not related to the in-group or out-group (M = 970.17, SD = 9014.00 views, M = 25.16, SD = 106.83 replies). However, variability in these values was substantial, as indicated by the very large standard deviations. Preparation for Further Coding Several procedures were applied to the 690 threads to enable further coding. In seven threads where the first message was posted by an out-group member (e.g., a Jewish person), it was replaced with the next available message posted by a Stormfront member. 44 threads (6.38%) were then discarded because none of the messages contained codeable content. Examples of messages with no codeable content included those that consisted solely of a question, quote, or link to another website. Of the remaining 646 messages (representing 646 threads), 307 people had posted the first codeable message once and 107 people had posted the first codeable message more than once. As in Study 1, only one message from each poster was included in the sample. To determine which message to retain, people with multiple postings were grouped according to the number of messages they had posted. Whether the first or a subsequent message was retained was alternated within the groups. For example, among those who had posted twice, the first message of the first person was retained, the second message of the second person was retained, the first message of the third person was retained, and so on. In total, this procedure resulted in 414 messages being coded for the presence or absence of the same categories as in Study 1. Where applicable, threats were coded as realistic or symbolic to better understand the nature of the threats that concern Stormfront members. These specific threats were of interest because they have been consistently linked to prejudice, both theoretically (e.g., Campbell, 1965; LeVine & Campbell, 1965; Rokeach, Smith, & Evans, 1960; Sherif, 1966; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and empirically (e.g., Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Sherif et al., 1961; Struch & Schwartz, 1989).


Realistic threats refer to threats to the existence, political power, economic power, or physical well-being of the in-group. In the following example of realistic threat, a person discusses the relationship between her sister and her sister’s non-white boyfriend: They already started sleeping together “unprotected” and my biggest fear is my sister might taint my race sooner or later. Symbolic threats consist of threats by an out-group to in-group values, morals, beliefs, and norms. In the following example of symbolic threat, a person discusses the influence of black culture: …accepting the MTV, whites that act black, or use “street-urban dialect” hip hop, baggy pants, etc etc, it is rejecting ones own culture in trade for another…Therefore it is a way of “losing your whiteness.” Interrater Reliability Two raters independently coded 54 messages (∼13% of the total set). The coders’ ratings showed generally high agreement. Kappa’s coefficients were as follows: in-group positivity = .76, out-group negativity = .92, threat = .95, positive emotion = .95, negative emotion = .70, and racial slur = 1.00. After disagreements were resolved via discussion, one of the raters coded the remaining messages for the presence or absence of the categories and, where applicable, the target of in-group positivity, out-group negativity, and threat. Frequency Data There was a higher percentage of in-group positivity and a lower percentage of out-group negativity and racial slurs in this sample than in Study 1 (see Table 9.4). In-group positivity (collapsed across the two in-group targets) and out-group negativity (collapsed across the three out-group targets) were present in about one-third of the threads each, and there was no significant difference between the composite scores for in-group positivity and out-group negativity, χ2(1) = 2.17, p = .14. However, when the targets were race-based, there was a significant difference between in-group positivity and out-group negativity, such that out-group negativity toward minorities occurred more often than positivity toward whites, χ2(1) = 12.47, p < .001. In this study, race-based in-group positivity and out-group negativity accounted for the vast majority of cases of in-group positivity and out-group negativity (66.67 and 82.67%, respectively). Threats, positive emotions, and negative emotions each occurred at a rate of about one in five threads. Percentages of the coded categories were generally

176 • Karen Gonsalkorale and William von Hippel Table 9.4 Frequencies of the Coded Categories in Total Sample and as a Function of Threads with Threat Present and Threat Absent, Study 2 Frequency (%) Coded Category In-group positivity (whites) In-group positivity (racially aware) In-group positivity (composite) Out-group negativity (minorities) Out-group negativity (race traitors) Out-group negativity (liberals) Out-group negativity (composite) Racial slur Threat (realistic) Threat (symbolic) Threat (composite) Positive emotion Negative emotion

Threat Present (N = 86)

Threat Absent (N = 328)

Total (N = 414)

25 (29.07)

59 (17.99)

84 (20.29)

11 (12.79)

31 (9.45)

42 (10.14)

36 (41.86)

90 (27.44)

126 (30.43)

52 (60.47)

72 (21.95)

124 (29.95)

2 (2.33)

11 (3.35)

13 (3.14)

4 (4.65)

9 (2.74)

13 (3.14)

58 (67.44)

92 (29.05)

150 (36.23)

20 (23.26) – – – 25 (29.07) 30 (34.88)

35 (10.67) – – – 52 (15.85) 43 (13.11)

55 (13.29) 77 (18.60) 12 (2.90) 89 (21.50) 77 (18.60) 73 (17.63)

greater in the threat-present sample than in the threat-absent sample; this difference was significant for positivity toward whites, χ2(1) = 5.17, p < .05, negativity toward minorities, χ2(1) = 48.17, p < .001, positive emotion, χ2(1) = 7.86, p < .01, negative emotion, χ2(1) = 22.24, p < .001, and racial slurs, χ2(1) = 9.37, p < .01. Relationships between Coded Categories Phi correlations between the coded categories for the 414 threads are presented in Table 9.5. Although they were small in magnitude, several correlations were significant. As positivity toward whites increased, so did negativity toward minorities and racial slurs. Negativity toward minorities was also correlated with both types of threat, both types of emotion, and racial slur. In addition to positivity toward whites and negativity toward minorities, racial slur was significantly related to positivity toward racially aware whites, negativity toward liberals, negative emotion, and, consistent with Study 1,

.00

−.02

.01

O− (L)

.32** .41**

.03

.09

−.03 −.11*

.05 .17**

Em− Slur .13**

.14**

−.01 .38**

.33**

−.12*

.15**

.27**

O− (c)g

b

a

.14**

.22**

.11*

.03

Thr (R)h

I+ (W) = positivity toward whites I+ (RA) = positivity toward racially aware whites c I+ (c) = composite indicator of in-group positivity (collapsed across target of in-group positivity) d O− (M) = negativity toward minorities e O− (RT) = negativity toward race traitors f O− (L) = negativity toward liberals and communists g O− (c) = composite indicator of out-group negativity (collapsed across target of out-group negativity) h Thr (R) = realistic threat i Thr (S) = symbolic threat j Em+ = positive emotion k Em− = negative emotion **p < .01. *p < .05

.14** .01

−.01

.30**

.21**

.13**

−.03

.14** −.11*

.08

.04

.06

.22**

.02

.25**

O− (L)f

−.01

.25**

−.03

O− (RT)e

Em+

.91** .31**

.18**

.10*

.00

.00

O− (M)d

Thr (S)

.23**

.08

O− (c)

Thr (R)

.04

.03

.08

−.01

.01

O− (RT)

.16**

.52**

−.06

.23**

O− (M)

I+ (c)

−.11* .78**

I+ (RA)

I+ (c)c

I+ (RA)b

I+ (W)a

Table 9.5 Phi Correlations between the Coded Categories in Total Sample (N = 414), Study 2

.06

.15**

.14**

Thr (S)i

−.00

−.04

Em+j

.30**

Em−k



realistic threat. Thus, while there was evidence of reciprocity between in-group positivity and out-group negativity in relation to race-based groups, several categories were also related to hostility toward minorities and racial slur. Negativity toward other out-groups (race traitors and liberals) was not significantly related to either form of in-group positivity. To examine whether in-group positivity uniquely predicted outgroup negativity and racial slurs, two logistic regression analyses were conducted (see Table 9.6). In each analysis, positivity toward whites, positivity toward racially aware whites, realistic threat, symbolic threat, positive emotion, and negative emotion were entered simultaneously as predictors. When the criterion was negativity toward minorities, all variables emerged as significant predictors, except for positivity toward racially aware whites. When the criterion was racial slurs, positivity toward whites and negative emotion were the only significant predictors. Thus, positivity toward whites made a unique contribution to predicting both negativity toward minorities and racial slurs. Relationships as a Function of Threat Relationships between the categories as a function of threat are shown in Table 9.7. Because the frequencies of symbolic threat were disproportionately low in comparison to realistic threat (see Table 9.4), the two threat types were combined in these analyses. There was a small significant correlation between positivity toward whites and negativity toward minorities both when threat was present and when it was absent. Positivity toward whites was correlated Table 9.6 Logistic Regressions Predicting Negativity toward Minorities and Racial Slurs in Total Sample, Study 2 Criterion Variables Negativity toward Minorities

Racial Slurs

Predictor Variables

B

SE

Wald

B

SE

Wald

In-group positivity (whites) In-group positivity (racially aware whites) Realistic threat Symbolic threat Positive emotion Negative emotion

1.52***

.31

23.61

.97**

.35

7.82

−.12

.46

.07

1.05

2.88

.31 .69 .41 .30

28.07 6.08 15.20 21.41

.36 .79 .44 .34

1.98 .20 .09 24.11

1.65*** 1.70* −1.60*** 1.40***

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05, N = 414

−1.79

.51 .35 −.13 1.65***

1 .13* .00 .07 .15** .32** −.01 .08

.77** .46**

−.17 1 .53** −.05 .06 .01 −.01 .20** −.03 −.08

1 −.10 .77** .19** −.04 .07 .18** .25** .01 .15**

.26* −.19 .14 1 .02 −.04 .88** −.09 .19** .41**

O− (M)d .24* .17 .19 −.03 1 −.03 .31** −.08 .18** −.01

O− (RT)e −.14 −.08 −.18 .07 −.03 1 .28** −.02 .10 .06

O− (L)f .28** −.14 .15 .95** .12 .17 1 −.11* .23** .37**

O− (c)g

b

a

I+ (W) = positivity toward whites I+ (RA) = positivity toward racially aware whites c I+ (c) = composite indicator of in-group positivity (collapsed across target of in-group positivity) d O− (M) = negativity toward minorities e O− (RT) = negativity toward race traitors f O− (L) = negativity toward liberals and communists g O− (c) = composite indicator of out-group negativity (collapsed across target of out-group negativity) h Em+ = positive emotion i Em− = negative emotion **p < .01. *p < .05

I+ (W) I+ (RA) I+ (c) O− (M) O− (RT) O− (L) O− (c) Em+ Em− Slur

I+ (c)c

I+ (RA)b

I+ (W)a .10 .21* .20 −.37** .24* −.02 −.36** 1 −.14** −.01

Em+h

Table 9.7 Phi Correlations between the Coded Categories in Threads with Threat Present (N = 86, Above the Diagonal) and Absent (N = 328, Below the Diagonal), Study 2

.07 −.06 .04 .44** .05 .19 .41** .07 1 .19**

Em−i

.19 −.21 .05 .33** .10 .27* .31** −.05 .46** 1

Slur



with racial slur when threat was absent, but not when it was present. The significant correlation between positivity toward whites and negativity toward race traitors in the presence of threat should be interpreted in light of the low frequency of this type of out-group negativity (negativity toward race traitors was present in only two threads; see Table 9.4). Logistic regression analyses predicting negativity toward minorities in the presence and absence of threat were then conducted. Positivity toward whites was a significant predictor of negativity toward minorities in the context of the other variables irrespective of whether threat was present or absent (see Table 9.8). Positivity toward whites also significantly predicted racial slur over and above the other variables when threat was absent (see Table 9.9). A parallel logistic regression was Table 9.8 Logistic Regression Predicting Negativity toward Minorities in Threads with Threat Present and Absent, Study 2 Threat Present (N = 86)

In-group positivity (whites) In-group positivity (racially aware whites) Positive emotion Negative emotion

B

SE

Wald

2.85*

1.12

6.49

−.13

.87

.02

−4.45**

1.36

4.78**

1.43

Threat Absent (N = 328) B

SE

Wald

.35

14.54

.02

.53

.00

10.65

−.97*

.48

4.12

11.26

1.04**

.36

8.36

1.32***

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05 Table 9.9 Logistic Regression Predicting Racial Slur in Threads with Threat Absent, Study 2

In-group positivity (whites) In-group positivity (racially aware whites) Positive emotion Negative emotion **p < .01. *p < .05. N = 328

B

SE

Wald

1.00*

.42

5.67

1.05

1.14

.56 .43

.02 9.50

−1.13 −.08 1.32**


not conducted for the threat-present sample as this analysis was not expected to yield significant results in light of the nonsignificant zeroorder correlation between positivity toward whites and racial slur. Discussion The findings of Study 2 highlight the importance of intergroup relations for members of Stormfront. A majority of the downloaded threads (approximately 65%) discussed topics that were relevant to the in-group, out-group, or both. Such threads were more likely to be viewed and responded to than threads that were unrelated to the in-group or outgroup. Thus, Stormfront members seem to be particularly interested in issues surrounding intergroup relations. Although Study 2 suggested that intergroup relations are critically important for members of Stormfront, overall rates of in-group positivity and out-group negativity were not significantly different from each other. Nevertheless, mirroring Study 1, negativity toward minorities occurred more often than positivity toward whites. Both in-group positivity and out-group negativity were more likely to occur when threat was present than when it was absent. This finding is consistent with evidence that threat exacerbates intergroup bias (e.g., Esses et al., 1998; Sherif et al., 1961). In contrast to research on mainstream groups, out-group negativity increased as in-group positivity increased. Positivity toward whites predicted negativity toward minorities even when controlling for other variables and irrespective of whether threat was present or absent. Positivity toward whites moreover significantly predicted racial slurs in the absence of threat. Reciprocal relationships involving other types of in-group positivity (toward racially aware whites) and out-group negativity (toward race traitors and liberals) were not observed. It appears that in-group favoritism is indeed linked to out-group derogation for Stormfront members, but only when the groups are race based.

GENERAL DISCUSSION In this research, we content analyzed messages posted on Stormfront .org to examine the intergroup attitudes of white supremacists. Study 1 revealed a focus on out-group negativity, with Stormfront members expressing out-group negativity more often than in-group positivity in their written messages. Although no reciprocal relationships emerged between in-group positivity and out-group negativity, threats and outgroup negativity were associated with racial slurs. In Study 2, instances of out-group negativity outnumbered in-group positivity when the


targets were race based, and in this larger sample, positivity toward whites predicted negativity toward minorities and racial slurs over and above other variables such as realistic and symbolic threats. The relationship between positivity toward whites and negativity toward minorities emerged irrespective of whether threat was present or absent. The correlations between positivity toward whites and negativity toward minorities were small in size, suggesting that in-group positivity and out-group negativity are only weakly linked, even for members of hate groups. However, these findings were based on what Stormfront members chose to openly discuss, which does not necessarily reflect the entirety of their thoughts. It is possible that the true relationship is stronger than the current research suggests. People tend to display attitudes that conform to social norms (e.g., Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien, 2002; Wittenbrink & Henley, 1996), and it is possible that even here group norms constrained the types of messages posted on the discussion board. Rules posted on the Stormfront home page require that all messages conform to legal requirements. For example, members are asked not to incite violence against other groups; this may partly account for findings that white supremacist websites contain low levels of advocated violence (Douglas, McGarty, Bliuc, & Lala, 2005). These factors might have led to enhancement of the pro-white norm, independent of negativity toward out-groups. Additionally, failing to mention in-group positivity and out-group negativity does not indicate that the two were unassociated in people’s minds. It is the case, however, that mentioning both categories is evidence that the writer was thinking about in-group positivity and out-group negativity together. Thus, the reciprocal relationships found in this study probably represent the lower limit of the effect size. Had it been possible to obtain direct ratings, a stronger relationship between in-group positivity and out-group negativity may have been found. Previous researchers such as Brewer (2001) have theorized that ingroup and out-group attitudes become negatively correlated under zero-sum conditions. When the welfare of the in-group can only be achieved at the expense of the out-group, in-group positivity can lead to out-group hostility. Intergroup threats posed by an out-group, either realistic or symbolic, can lead group members to perceive zero-sum conditions. In Study 2, threat was not required for reciprocity between in-group and out-group attitudes to occur; reciprocity between ingroup positivity and out-group negativity emerged irrespective of whether threat was present or absent. This finding does not support the view that the relationship between in-group positivity and out-group negativity is pronounced under threat. It is possible, however, that


threat is chronically salient for Stormfront members and other white supremacists. That is, even when they do not explicitly mention threat, its presence might be implicit or understood and thus the obtained relationship between in-group positivity and out-group negativity might reflect appreciable levels of threat at all times. This possibility is supported by observations that white supremacist ideologies frequently refer to threats posed by minorities and immigrants (Ezekiel, 2002). A preoccupation with intergroup threats is also suggested by evidence from Study 1 that Stormfront members were more interested in messages related to threat than messages emphasizing white supremacy. Overall, these exploratory studies indicate that out-group derogation is primary among white supremacists, and these negative attitudes toward out-group members are reciprocally linked to in-group favoritism. The question remains as to why intergroup bias among white supremacists differs from that of mainstream groups. As discussed, chronic perceived threat may play a role. Another possible answer comes from research on negational identities—identities defined by what one is not (e.g., not a Republican) rather than what one is (e.g., a Democrat; Zhong, Galinsky, & Unzueta, 2008a; Zhong, Phillips, Leonardelli, & Galinsky, 2008b). It may be the case that white supremacists are prone to negational identification, defining themselves partially in terms of who they are not (not black, Jewish, Asian, etc.). Negational identification leads to a distinct pattern of intergroup bias. In a minimal group study (Zhong et al., 2008b, study 2), participants who were given a negational identity (“you do not belong to the Type M group”) displayed higher levels of out-group derogation but not in-group favoritism than participants given an affirmational identity (“you belong to the Type M group”). Affirmational identity resulted in in-group favoritism but not out-group derogation, whereas negational identity resulted in both in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. This suggests that positive distinctiveness was achieved via somewhat different routes, with the negational identity condition deviating from the typical finding that intergroup bias is primarily a function of in-group favoritism (e.g., Brewer, 1979, 1999, 2001). Notably, in Zhong et al.’s (2008a, 2008b) research, the intergroup context was devoid of competition, threat, or other factors associated with zero-sum conditions; out-group derogation resulted from negational categorization alone. Out-group derogation may be “a natural consequence” of negational identification because negational identities focus on how the self is dissimilar to an out-group (i.e., contrast from the out-group; Zhong et al., 2008b, p. 798). For affirmational identities, the focus is on how the self is similar to other in-group members


(i.e., assimilation with the in-group; Zhong et al., 2008b), thus reducing the relevance of out-group derogation as a source of positive distinctiveness. In addition to changing people’s frame of reference from the in-group to the out-group, negational identification may lead to redefinition of category boundaries. Zhong et al. (2008a) manipulated the salience of negational identity by asking Asian and Latino participants to write about either their experiences as a non-white person or as a member of their racial in-group. When negational identity was made salient, participants were more likely to report that they would vote for Barack Obama (a nonwhite candidate) instead of Hilary Clinton (a white candidate) if given these choices in the Democratic primary. Although not directly tested, it is possible that people previously considered out-group members (blacks) were recategorized as in-group members (nonwhites) when negational identity was made salient (Zhong et al., 2008a). These studies illustrate how negational identification can have important consequences for intergroup attitudes and behavior. Whether white supremacists’ tendency to derogate minorities results from negational identification (“I am not a racial minority”) remains a question for future research. Another avenue for future research is to identify the antecedents of negational identities. One possibility is that negational identities are the result of a motivation to escape low status or a strategy for bolstering self-esteem (Fein & Spencer, 1997). That is, if people are not in a position to celebrate who or what they are (e.g., poor, uncultured, unskilled whites), then they might be more likely to resort to celebrating what they are not (e.g., black). This might explain why negational identities may be more closely tied to out-group derogation than in-group favoritism. However, it is not clear whether membership in racist groups is associated with low socioeconomic status. Although Ezekiel (2002) reported that many of the neo-Nazi activists he interviewed came from poor homes, other research (Green, Strolovitch, & Wong, 1998) has found no relationship between hate-crime incidents and neighborhood economic status. A second possibility is that negational identification is motivated by the need for distinctiveness; this idea is supported by evidence that negational identities are more accessible when the need for distinctiveness is made salient among nonracist samples (Zhong et al., 2008b). Future research could examine whether white supremacists have a heightened need for distinctiveness and whether this is associated with a greater propensity to engage in negational identification. It is also worth considering whether different groups, or different members within a given group, vary in the extent to which they perceive an affirmational identity as implying contrast from an out-group.


That is, when people do engage in affirmational identification (“I am white”), to what extent does their definition of this identity incorporate contrast from an out-group? Research on white racial identity indicates that whites are more likely to define themselves in terms of their race if they had a high level of exposure to non-whites while growing up (Knowles & Peng, 2005). This implies that identification with the white in-group depends, at least to some extent, on contrast from racial minorities. For white supremacists, out-groups may be so salient that their ingroup is partly defined by out-groups; not being black, Jewish, or Asian may be considered a core part of what it means to be white. Thus, the identity of white supremacists may be fundamentally linked to the identity of minority groups. This observation of interdependence between the identities of white supremacists and their out-groups has been made by Leets (2001, p. 290): “white supremacists’ racial, religious and sexual orientations represent a classic dichotomization of others as ‘not us.’ ” Whites who are not white supremacists may be less likely to perceive a dichotomy between their racial in-group and out-groups. When people do perceive an out-group as defining their in-group, they may be more likely to exhibit out-group negativity and show interdependence between in-group and out-group attitudes. In cases where groups are reciprocally defining, it should be very difficult for individuals who identify with their group to achieve positive distinctiveness without derogating the out-group. This idea can be tested in future research by examining groups that define “us” as not being “them.” For example, the identity of some atheists (who are identified as such) may rest heavily on the fact that they are not people who subscribe to religious beliefs. In contrast, the identity of agnostics may not necessarily depend on comparisons with religious people. This difference implies that people who identify themselves as atheists will display reciprocally negative attitudes toward people who are high in religiosity, whereas the intergroup attitudes of agnostic people will not exhibit this relationship. Thus, although evidence of reciprocity in the current research was based on an extreme group, more mainstream groups that have reciprocally defining features may also show a negative relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. It is also worth noting that relationships between in-group positivity and out-group negativity will most certainly be determined by multiple causes. Despite the mixed findings of the current research regarding the role of intergroup threat, this factor is likely to be an important determinant of intergroup attitudes. As hypothesized by some researchers (e.g., Brewer, 2001), intergroup conflict might exert its influence by creating perceptions of zero-sum access to resources. However, intergroup conflict


might also cause groups to define themselves in a reciprocal manner. For example, Kelman (1999) argued that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been characterized by negative interdependence between the two national identities. According to this account, the two sides have not only defined access to territory as a zero-sum conflict, but also their national identities. That is, “each group’s success in identity building depends on the other’s failure in that task” (p. 589), and thus each side has denied the legitimacy of the other’s national identity. For example, Palestinians have argued that Judaism is a religion and is therefore not a true basis for a nation state, while Israelis have contended that Palestinian nationalism is an artificial creation without historical foundations. Kelman’s analysis suggests that the in-group positivity and out-group hostility evident in Israeli–Palestinian relations may have arisen from negative interdependence in relation to scarce resources and group identities. Future research could examine the possibility that intergroup conflict leads in-groups to define themselves as a function of the out-group or increases the likelihood that people will engage in negational identification. The self-proclaimed goal of many white supremacist organizations is to promote pride in the white race. Their leaders portray the white pride movement as akin to other social movements that encourage attachment to one’s in-group. To the contrary, the current research suggests that in-group bias for white supremacists is driven by out-group negativity. Out-group hate, not in-group love, appears to be the primary motive among these individuals. Perhaps it is these strong feelings of out-group negativity that promote the intergroup conflict and violence that emerges among the more extreme members of such groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Rebekah East, Amy Hawker, Eileen Chu, and Marco Olea for their assistance with data coding.

REFERENCES Anonymous. (1999a, November 14). Racialism and being fed to the lions [Msg]. Message posted to http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ Anonymous. (1999b, November 14). Sick of race mixing [Msg]. Message posted to http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ Anonymous. (1999c, November 20). Passengers [Msg]. Message posted to http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.


Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: In-group love or out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. Brewer, M. B. (2001). In-group identification and intergroup conflict: When does in-group love become out-group hate? In D. Wilder (Ed.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). London: Oxford University Press. Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 283–311). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. Dobratz, B. A. (2001). The role of religion in the collective identity of the white racialist movement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 287–301. Douglas, K. M., McGarty, C., Bliuc, A. M., & Lala, G. (2005). Understanding cyberhate: Social competition and social creativity in on-line whitesupremacist groups. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 68–76. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1991). Changes in the nature and assessment of racial prejudice. In H. Knopke, J. Norrell, & R. Rogers (Eds.), Opening doors: An appraisal of race relations in contemporary America (pp. 201– 241). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. Etter, G. W., Sr. (1999). Skinheads: Manifestations of the warrior culture of the new urban tribes. Journal of Gang Research, 6, 9–21. Etter, G. W., Sr. (2002). The perceived effects of religion on white supremacist culture. Journal of Gang Research, 9, 15–24. Ezekiel, R. S. (2002). An ethnographer looks at neo-Nazi and Klan groups: The racist mind revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 51–71. Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 31–44. Green, D., Strolovitch, D., & Wong, J. (1998). Defended neighborhoods, integration, and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 372–403. Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778–788. Kelman, H. C. (1999). The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities: The role of the other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 581–600. Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.

188 • Karen Gonsalkorale and William von Hippel Knowles, E. D., & Peng, K. (2005). White selves: Conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 223–241. Leader, T. I., Mullen, B., & Rice, D. (2009). Complexity and valence in ethnophaulisms and exclusion of ethnic out-groups: What puts the “hate” into hate speech? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 170–182. Leets, L. (2001). Response to Internet hate sites: Is speech too free in cyberspace? Communication Law & Policy, 6, 287–317. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley. Rokeach, M., Smith, P., & Evans, R. (1960). Two kinds of prejudice or one? In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind (pp. 132–168). New York: Basic Books. Schafer, J. A. (2002). Spinning the web of hate: Web-based hate propagation by extremist organizations. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9, 69–88. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and co-operation: The Robber’s Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 364–373. Sumner, W. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn. Tourish, D., & Wohlforth, T. (2000). Prophets of the apocalypse: White supremacy and the theology of Christian identity. Cultic Studies Journal, 17, 15–41. Wittenbrink, B., & Henley, J. R. (1996). Creating social reality: Informational and social influence and the content of stereotypic beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 598–610. Yousman, B. (2003). Blackophilia and blackophobia: White youth, the consumption of rap music, and white supremacy. Communication Theory, 13, 366–391. Zhong, C. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2008a). Negational racial identity and presidential voting preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1563–1566. Zhong, C. B., Phillips, K. W., Leonardelli, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008b). Negational categorization and intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 793–806.

10 DEVELOPING A THEORY OF GENDERED PREJUDICE An Evolutionary and Social Dominance Perspective* Melissa M. McDonald, Carlos D. Navarrete, and Jim Sidanius

In this chapter, we argue that racism and ethnocentrism should be viewed as gendered phenomena. We provide a framework for interpreting current findings in the social psychological literature on prejudice, and for framing predictions about its gendered nature. Our evolutionary approach to the gendered nature of prejudice is informed by social dominance theory (SDT; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), which holds that all human societies are composed of group-based social hierarchies that are stratified on the basis of the following: (a) age: adults have greater social power than the young; (b) gender: men have greater social power than women; and (c) arbitrary sets, which are socially constructed groupings of individuals on the basis of salient characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, social class, and religion—some of which have greater social power than others. In this view, arbitraryset distinctions can indeed be, literally, quite arbitrary; yet, it is the capacity of the human mind to mentally process arbitrary set groups as “real” entities with their own goals and interests that undergird the potential for racial and ethnic prejudice. * This chapter is dedicated to Marilynn B. Brewer, a magnificent scholar who, among many other things, has substantially affected the development of SDT in ways she is scarcely aware of.

189

190 • Melissa M. McDonald, Carlos D. Navarrete, and Jim Sidanius

As a kind of “realistic group conflict” theory, at a broad level, SDT argues that prejudice is at least partly motivated by the desire among individuals of one arbitrary-set group to acquire more resources, status, and power for one’s own group at the expense of other groups. However, it goes further than other group conflict perspectives in the claim that because “male” and “female” are fundamental categories across the natural world, arbitrary-set group prejudice is largely determined by the gender of both the target and agent of prejudice. More specifically, with the understanding of race and ethnic categories as types of arbitrary-set groups, it generates the counterintuitive prediction that minority men, not minority women, should be expected to be the primary targets of racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination. This prediction stands in contrast to rather intuitive expectations derived from standard feminist and social identity theory, according to which minority women are thought to be subjected to a kind of “double jeopardy” because they share membership in two disadvantaged categories and should therefore be doubly disadvantaged as the targets of both gender and racial discrimination (Almquist, 1975; Beale, 1970). SDT arrives at this provocative hypothesis along the following theoretical lines. As a psychological manifestation of the conflict of interests among groups, prejudice is, to a large extent, motivated by the goal of social dominance, defined as the desire for hierarchically structured and dominant/subordinate relationships among salient social groups. However, because men are predisposed to aggressive status striving with other men, this goal is primarily a characteristic of the psychology of men. As such, SDT argues that men are expected to be the primary agents of arbitrary-set discrimination. Additionally, because intrasexual competition is expected to be greater among men than among women, men are also more likely to be the primary targets of arbitrary-set discrimination. From this line of reasoning, the authors have put forth a so-called subordinate male target hypothesis (SMTH; see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), which simply states that it is men, not women, who will serve as both the primary targets and agents of prejudice and discrimination against racial minorities (Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000). Although a considerable amount of empirical evidence can be marshaled in support of the SMTH, we submit that an extension and a few important theoretical clarifications are in order. We first revisit the logic underlying the SMTH and clarify its conceptual footing within modern evolutionary theory—specifically with regard to the theories of parental investment and sexual selection (Bateman, 1948; Darwin, 1871; Trivers, 1972). In doing so, we reiterate the empirical claim that men should serve as both the primary agents and targets of arbitrary-set-based prejudice,

Developing a Theory of Gendered Prejudice • 191

but make a few important qualifications to the nature of such prejudice. Contrary to the assumptions of many theorists and researchers within the field of intergroup relations (e.g., Alexander, 1979; Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Sumner, 1906), Brewer (1979) made the early and critical observation that in-group favoritism is distinct from out-group denigration or aggression. Brewer (2007) has reiterated: “Despite widespread belief that in-group positivity and out-group derogation are reciprocally related, empirical research demonstrates little consistent relationship between the two. Indeed, results from both laboratory experiments and field studies indicate that variations in in-group positivity and social identification do not systematically correlate with the degree of bias or negativity toward out-groups” (p. 730). This distinction between intergroup prejudice as in-group favoritism versus out-group aggression is critical to our understanding of the intersection between gender and prejudice. Based on the assumptions of SDT, we see little theoretical reason to expect prejudice, defined as in-group favoritism, to be gendered, in that there should be few, if any, gender differences in the levels of in-group favoritism among men and women, nor with respect to the gender of the targets of in-group favoritism. In contrast, this gender orthogonality is not expected when intergroup prejudice is defined in terms of out-group aggression, dominance, or social predation. Within this domain of intergroup prejudice, men are expected to be both the primary agents and targets of intergroup predation and aggression. Furthermore, we make the qualification that power asymmetries need not exist between groups in order for negativity toward the males of other groups to be expressed, that is, the targeted group need not necessarily be subordinate, as the SMTH implies. Finally, we provide a theoretical clarification for the claim that men, not women, will serve as the primary targets of intergroup prejudice and give an evolutionary account of how women may also be expected to be prejudiced toward out-group men. In doing so, we temper the claim that prejudice is largely a “male affair,” and develop the notion that on evolutionary grounds, men and women both have cause to act as agents of prejudice toward out-group men, with the qualification that the underlying motivations for this prejudice are gender specific. We posit that whereas prejudice held by men may be driven by aggression against and dominance over men belonging to arbitrary-set groups other than one’s own (out-groups), women’s prejudice is more likely to be characterized by wariness or fearfulness of such men. These predictions are derived from the theories of parental investment and sexual selection, coupled with a narrative account of human evolutionary


history in which women were not the primary agents of intergroup aggression but were commonly its victims—particularly with respect to sexual assault. Although it may be the case that men exhibit greater levels of intergroup prejudice than women in most domains, women are certainly not immune from prejudiced motivations, attitudes, emotions, and behavior. We provide both the theoretical framework and empirical evidence for our claims in the following sections.

PARENTAL INVESTMENT THEORY AND SEXUAL SELECTION From an evolutionary perspective, one could argue that many of the robust psychological differences between men and women can be explained in terms of the differential reproductive opportunities and risks by which male and female mammals are constrained. Because of the way mammalian reproductive systems are designed, females are obligated to invest much more heavily in offspring than are males— even before socialization of offspring occurs—in terms of time, energy, and resources associated with fertilization, gestation, parturition, and lactation. In sharp contrast, males have no physiological obligations in offspring past successful fertilization. This stark asymmetry in obligate physiological investment between the sexes sets the stage for complementary asymmetries in behavioral strategies to cope with these realities. As the higher investor in the mating transactions necessary to produce offspring, females are more discriminating in their choice of a candidate from the lower investing sex. Females also do not experience reproductive benefits from engaging in extra matings between conception and weaning. This leads to a female mating strategy that can be described as one primarily concerned with selecting mates of high quality (as mating strategies that maximize quantity are of little benefit to females), so as to not waste their costly investment. On the other hand, because males are not burdened with the same obligate costs in producing offspring, they are the less choosy sex. In contrast to the low reproductive benefits available to females pursuing multiple matings, males benefit more from a quantity mating strategy as their reproductive success rises as a function of the number of fertile mates with whom they copulate. These conflicting prerogatives of males and females create an incentive structure that rewards the lower investing sex for engaging in risky, aggressive, and often dangerous strategies for eliminating or neutralizing same-sex competitors in order to increase one’s mating access to the higher investing sex.


Such strategies are thought to result from the evolutionary process of sexual selection—a form of natural selection that leads to the evolution of traits or strategies that have little to do with survival but more to do with increasing one’s ability to attract or gain access to mates. Sexual selection can operate on traits or strategies that make one more successful in competition with others of the same sex (intrasexual selection), such as contesting for territory, food, status, mates, and other resources, or it can operate between the sexes (intersexual selection) where the preferences of one sex produces characteristics in the other sex that satiate that preference (e.g., nuptial gifts, peacock tails). With respect to violent conflict, intrasexual and intersexual selection may operate via a feedback loop to produce more violent, aggressive, and risky behaviors among males than among females. Males with attributes that provide them with an advantage in intrasexual competition may be more likely to be preferred as mates by females, who then pass the genes for those male attributes and their own preferences for them on to future generations. It is this process of sexual selection that results in the dimorphic phenotypes observed in many species, such that males tend to be larger, more heavily muscled, better armed (e.g., larger teeth and horns), and more prone to lethal aggression (Daly & Wilson, 1988). When the insights from sexual selection theory are coupled with the logic of parental investment theory, several implications emerge that can be applied to the domain of intergroup conflict. Such implications are relevant to understanding the fundamental nature of intergroup prejudice and how gender plays a key role in its expression. As is the case with the gender asymmetry in reproductive benefits gained from engaging in violent, intrasexual conflict at the individual level, it has been argued that aggression at the group level could also yield the potential for immense gains in reproductive resources for males relative to females (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Daly & Wilson, 1988; Tooby & Cosmides, 1988). Consider the example given by Tooby and Cosmides (1988) of a coalition of males who eliminate the males of a neighboring group and usurp their females. The males in the victorious group would experience a staggeringly steep increase in their fitness. Of course, males of other groups do not sit idly by while they are eliminated and are likely to violently resist, thereby exacting a substantial cost on the aggressors. However, even if the risk of failure among the aggressors is high and there are few survivors among male combatants, such risks are readily offset by the exponentially increasing benefits bestowed upon the victors because the reproductive rewards would be split among a smaller number of beneficiaries.


Our analysis suggests that the incentive structure of intergroup conflict is such that selection would have been particularly strong in shaping male-specific psychological traits that motivate aggression toward, and dominance over, other social groups. These psychological traits may take the form of emotions, attitudes, and cognitive biases whose ultimate function is to disadvantage or debilitate other groups relative to one’s own, particularly when the out-group targets are male. However, the psychology of prejudice among females is not likely to reflect the same function as it does for men as the incentives for intergroup aggression among females are less rewarding in an evolutionary sense. Not unlike males, females have much to lose from aggressive intergroup conflict, but there is little to gain because of their lower ceiling on reproductive success that can be had by increasing the pool of available mates. As such, it is unlikely that selection would have favored a female-specific psychology for intergroup aggression and dominance. Using parental investment and sexual selection theory, the preceding arguments provide a theoretical basis for the expectation that males should be the primary agents of violent intergroup conflict and that this agency is motivated by a desire to dominate out-groups in the service of obtaining valuable reproductive resources. However, a few issues remain to be clarified. First, it is necessary to address whether the outgroup target must necessarily be “subordinate” as was originally specified by the SMTH. Using the logic of sexual selection theory, we can derive no principles as to why intergroup aggression should necessarily be restricted toward males of subordinate groups. Males of any group, regardless of the group’s dominant or subordinate status, should be motivated to dominate other groups, or at the very least should aggressively resist being dominated, as the potential for complete failure in reproductive fitness is so great. Despite this, dominant groups may be more likely to target subordinate out-groups when power asymmetries are large because it is less costly to do so, given the strategic advantage that power imbalances bestow on dominant groups (Tooby & Cosmides, 1988). A second issue yet to be clarified within the context of intergroup conflict is why males, as the primary agents of intergroup aggression, do not target out-group females as well as out-group males. The logic of sexual selection suggests that males do not view females as competitors, but rather as contested resources. This is true for both in-group and out-group females, as it is often the case that females from the out-group are incorporated into the victorious group after intergroup conflict (Thornhill & Palmer, 2000; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Males are more likely to attempt to control female’s ability to acquire


resources, thereby forcing economic dependence, than to treat them as competitors. In the same vein, male’s ability to monopolize the available resources increases their value and attractiveness as a mate. This suggests that it is not generally the purview of males to harm or debilitate females as they are an invaluable resource as mates and caretakers of offspring. In contrast, it is the intent of males to harm and debilitate other males, as they represent an obstacle that impedes their ability to acquire mating opportunities. As such, gender bias functions as a paternalistic brand of discrimination rooted in a sense of male proprietorship over females, rather than their elimination or debilitation as competitors. This is not intended to suggest that women are not discriminated against on the basis of their membership in a particular arbitrary-set, but rather that this discrimination is more likely to be indirect, occurring as a result of their association with out-group men as daughters, sisters, mothers, and so forth (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). A third and final clarification of the original SMTH concerns the role of females as agents of prejudice. We have argued thus far that males are expected to be both the primary agents and targets of intergroup violence. However, it is certainly not the case that females are free from prejudiced motivations. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, among humans and chimpanzees, sexual and physical abuse of females is not an uncommon occurrence during intergroup conflict. Although females are typically spared from the most lethal forms of violence as combatants or victims, they may suffer threats to their reproductive choice through coercive and violent sexual attacks (Thornhill & Palmer, 2000; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). The violent conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur over the last two decades are relatively recent instances that highlight the brutality females experience during such conflicts. It is, therefore, a conflict of interest among males and females that characterizes gender relations in intergroup contexts. As a function of females’ high investment in offspring, reproductive choice is of crucial importance to females. In light of this, selection may have favored females who were particularly vigilant in the protection of their reproductive choice. Because intergroup conflict seems to have been much more common in prehistoric societies than in historic societies (Bamforth, 1994; Ember, Daly, & Wilson, 1978; Keeley, 1996; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996), women most likely faced considerably greater threat of sexual assault from out-group than from in-group males, if one corrects for the amount of time spent in the proximity of both categories of males. To the extent that out-group males pose a greater threat to female choice than in-group males, everything else being equal, a number of psychological mechanisms may have been


selected for that generate prejudice toward out-group males. The expression of this bias, however, is not likely to take the form of aggression and domination. The sexual dimorphic differences in size and strength between males and females would make this a very costly enterprise. Rather, the mechanism should promote avoidance of out-group members through fearful emotions along with attitudes and beliefs that characterize out-groups as threatening. It is, therefore, not the case that men should be the only agents of intergroup prejudice nor is it predicted that men will always exhibit more prejudice than women. Instead, we posit that both men and women are agents of prejudice, but that the character of this prejudice and its underlying motivations differ among men and women as a function of the different adaptive challenges each has faced over evolutionary time in the context of intergroup violence. Women are more motivated by threats to their reproductive choice, whereas men are more motivated to out-compete sexual rivals. In accordance with these motives, women’s out-group prejudice will be expressed via an avoidance strategy characterized by fear, whereas men’s prejudice will be expressed via an approach-oriented strategies characterized by aggression, violence, dominance, and social predation. The precise level of prejudice exhibited by men and women should, therefore, be dependent on characteristics of the situation and types of prejudice motivation that are subsequently aroused. Guided by the theories of sexual selection and parental investment, we have clarified and extended a number of predictions put forth by the SMTH as originally proposed by SDT (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In the process, we have altered the nature of the original hypothesis such that it may no longer be adequately characterized by the name, “subordinate male target hypothesis.” In its stead, we propose a theory of gendered prejudice, which asserts three primary predictions: (1) outgroup men serve as the primary targets of intergroup prejudice, especially when this prejudice is expressed as out-group denigration and aggression; (2) although both men and women may serve as agents of intergroup prejudice, as expressed by in-group bias and in-group favoritism, men will tend to be the primary agents of prejudice, as expressed by out-group denigration, intergroup domination, and social predation; and (3) men and women’s out-group prejudice is driven by different underlying motivations—out-group prejudice among women is significantly motivated by fearful avoidance, whereas out-group prejudice among men is more likely to be motivated by a combination of aggression and social dominance. We will now turn to empirical work that supports these predictions.


EMPIRICAL SUPPORT Intrasexual Competition and Risky Behavior Arguing from the logic of parental investment theory and sexual selection, we have asserted that men have greater incentive to engage in high-risk behaviors in order to compete for access to women who represent a both highly valued and scarce resource. As such, we should find evidence that intrasexual competition is greater among men than women and that men engage in riskier, competitive tactics than women. We find evidence of this in the literature examining both human and primate intergroup aggression. For example, among chimpanzees, it is primarily the males, not females, that form alliances (generally along kinship lines) and then engage in intergroup hostility (Goodall, 1986). Evidence of substantially higher levels of intrasexual competition and aggression among men can be found all around us, from self-report measures of aggression to aggressive behavior in laboratory studies, intensely competitive forms of play among male children, individual homicides, gang wars, and full-scale international conflagrations (e.g., Archer, 2004; Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Keegan, 1993; Terrell, Hill, & Nagoshi, 2008; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). Although there is certainly intense and sometimes violent intrasexual competition among human women often expressed in the form of reputational aggression (see especially Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; see also Archer, 2004; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Campbell, 1999), competition among men is often much more physically violent and lethal than that found among women. Evidence of the substantially higher levels of physical competitiveness and aggression among men can also be seen in homicide data. For example, in the United States during the interval between 1976 and 2004, men committed 93.3% of felony murders (see Bureau of Justice Statistics). Furthermore, as reported by Daly and Wilson (1988), when one restricts attention to intrasexual homicide (i.e., same-sex homicide) across a broad array of societies,* roughly 96% of such mayhem is male violence targeted against other males. The disproportionate rate of intrasexual male violence is not just restricted to individual acts of violence but can also be found in various forms of collective conflict such as intertribal, interclan, intergang, and interstate warfare. The fact that intergroup warfare tends to be * The societies included in this statistic are Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, Germany, Iceland, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the United States, Scotland, Uganda, Wales, and Zaire.


dominated by men has been observed for some time. For example, the well-known war historian Keegan (1993) remarks that “warfare is, nevertheless, the one human activity from which women, with the most insignificant exceptions, have always and everywhere stood apart.... Women, however, do not fight. They rarely fight among themselves and they never, in any military sense, fight men. If warfare is as old as history and as universal as mankind, we must now enter the supremely important limitation that it is an entirely masculine activity” (p. 76). When risky and competitive behavior is examined in the laboratory, the same gender differences arise again and again. For example, Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) examined whether men and women of the same abilities differed in their preference to participate in a competitive task. Participants completed a simple math task with a noncompetitive incentive structure and then completed the same task with a tournament style, competitive incentive structure. For a third task, participants were permitted to choose an incentive structure for the task. Of the male participants, 73% selected the competitive task, whereas only 35% of the female participants made this choice. The authors found that this gender difference was not explained by differences in performance but instead was partially driven by men’s greater preference for performing competitively. Along similar lines, Kleinjans (2009) reported that women evince a greater distaste for competition than men and that this distaste predicts women’s selection into less competitive occupations. This research demonstrates rather conclusively that men tend to not only exhibit more competitive and risky behavior than do women, but actually seek out opportunities to engage competitively with others. Unfortunately, this research does not address intrasexual competition within an intergroup context and also does little to demonstrate the underlying motivations for this behavior. To address the first issue regarding intergroup context, Van Vugt, De Cremer, and Janssen (2007) demonstrated, across three studies, that in public goods tasks, men contributed more to their in-group when they believed they were competing against an out-group, whereas women tended to contribute equally regardless of whether or not they thought they were competing against an out-group. These results suggest that cues of intergroup competition are particularly salient to men relative to women. To address the issue regarding the underlying motivations of intrasexual competition, a recent study has provided support for the notion that risky and competitive behavior among men is in the service of securing mating opportunities. Baker and Maner (2009) had participants complete a behavioral measure of riskiness under a variety of conditions associated with mating opportunities. Participants first viewed a


video of an opposite-sex partner (confederate) who disclosed that they were either single or engaged to be married. Participants then completed the risk task either privately or under the assumption that their performance would be viewed by their partner. The results indicated that men, but not women, exhibited riskier behavior when they believed that a single opposite-sex partner would view their performance. These results suggest men’s risky and competitive behavior is at least partly driven by the desire to impress the opposite sex when a mating opportunity is potentially available. The research described above suggests that intrasexual competition is greater among men relative to women. This greater competition comes in the form of real-world aggressive and often lethal violence, and also in more controlled laboratory studies demonstrating a greater propensity for competitive and risky behavior among men relative to women. Finally, there is evidence that the risky and competitive behavior of men is in the service of promoting the acquisition of mating opportunities. Such evidence is in accord with the arguments we derived from parental investment theory and sexual selection, namely that men have far more to gain, relative to women, by engaging in competitive and risky status-striving strategies. It has been further argued that these same processes that drive greater intrasexual competition among men within a group can be extrapolated to account for the violent and aggressive intergroup conflict observed among men. That is, the potential benefits associated with intergroup competition are far greater for men than for women, thereby making it more likely that men will serve as the primary targets and agents of intergroup aggression. We now review evidence specific to intergroup relations, looking first at evidence that men are the primary targets of arbitrary-set discrimination, then turning to evidence that men are the primary agents of intergroup prejudice (although certainly not the sole agents), and finally examining the gender-specific psychologies that motivate intergroup prejudice among men and women. Targets of Intergroup Prejudice Evidence that out-group men rather than out-group women, constitute the primary targets for arbitrary-set animus and antagonism can be found across an array of everyday domains of life, including the labor market, criminal justice system, housing and retail markets, and educational sector. However, the clearest and least ambiguous evidence in support of this prediction can be observed in hate crime statistics. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there were some 210,000 hate crimes committed in the United States between July 2000 and


December 2003 in which the violent victimization rate was 50% higher for men than for women* (see Harlow, 2005). One can also find evidence that men are the primary targets of intergroup prejudice in the more mundane instances of everyday discrimination. Perhaps the clearest of such evidence is found in the labor market. For example, in a study of minority disadvantage in Great Britain in 1974, Smith (1976) found that white women earned a weekly wage which that was approximately 3% higher than that earned by black women. However, this relative advantage of whites over blacks was substantially larger among men, in which it was found that white men earned a weekly wage that was 10% higher than that of black men. American census data tend to show the same gender-moderated racial differences in earnings. For example, in 1994, white women showed average yearly earnings that were approximately 7% higher than black women whereas white men had average yearly earnings that were 44% higher than that of black men (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The same pattern of gender-moderated discrimination is found even after controlling for educational achievement. For example, Farley and Allen (1987) conducted an illuminating series of analyses on additional hourly wages earned as a function of one additional year of education among white and black men and women. Although all gender-by-ethnicity groups benefited economically by increased educational investment, these economic returns on educational investment were not equally distributed. White men received a higher return rate on one additional year of college education than did black men in both 1960 ($0.78 vs. $0.58 per hour, respectively) and 1980 ($0.96 vs. $0.63 per hour). However, the pattern was very different for white and black women, where the exact opposite trend held. In 1960, white women received an additional $0.59 per hour, while black women received an additional $0.62 per hour in wages. In 1980, the same pattern held, but with black women earning even more per hour than white women ($0.79 vs. $0.64). In other words, while the basic data can provide some basis for a claim of arbitrary-set (i.e., racial) discrimination against black men, there is no evidence in these data to support a case of arbitrary-set discrimination against black women. The same type of gender-moderated income asymmetry was also found in Bowen and Bok’s (1998) longitudinal study of the 1995 incomes of black and white students from the entering class of 1976 to America’s elite universities and colleges. Their analyses showed that although white * Annual rate of violent victimizations was 0.9 per 1,000 persons for men and 0.6 per 1,000 persons for women.


women graduates earned slightly more than black women graduates (i.e., $64,100 vs. $60,900 per year respectively), this “racial” gap between white and black women essentially disappeared once a very comprehensive set of controls* were introduced ($64,000 vs. $63,700 per year respectively). However, the racial differences between men were not so easily accounted for by controls. Mean earned income in 1995 for white men was 29.1% higher than that of black men. Although these differences were attenuated after comprehensive controls were introduced, there was still a 9% earnings advantage in favor of white men. This gender-moderated racial victimization can also be found by use of controlled field employment audits.† For example, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) performed a small meta-analysis of some 19 employment audits, contrasting the employment outcomes for varying dominant and subordinate groups across five nations (i.e., Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States). While all of these studies showed significant levels of employment discrimination against members of subordinate ethnic groups, controlling for a number of factors, the results showed that the discrimination against subordinate men was substantially higher than that against subordinate women (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, pp. 162–172). These effects persist into the 21st century and with respect to other minority groups as well. For example, according to the U.S. Census, the 2006 earnings of white women from full-time employment were approximately 16% greater than that of black women and 42% greater than that of Latino women. In contrast, white men earned 37% more than black men and 73% more than Latino men (U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 2007; see Figure 10.1). Within the retail sector, Ayres and colleagues have conducted a number of field experiments exploring the degree to which arbitrary sets are discriminated against within the automobile market (Ayres, 1991, 1995; Ayres & Siegelman, 1995). In a series of audit studies, teams of black and white, men and women auditors were sent to a number of randomly selected car dealerships to negotiate for new cars. Holding all other economically relevant factors constant (e.g., income, credit worthiness, employment history), it was shown that although black women were required to pay somewhat more than equivalently qualified white * These analyses controlled for SAT scores, GPA, fields of study, SES, selectivity of schools attended, advanced degrees attained, and sector of employment. † Audit studies measure discrimination directly with experimental fieldwork. Audit studies can unambiguously demonstrate discrimination by presenting the subjects with two nearly identical candidates, who differ in only one characteristic, such as race, age, or gender. Thus, any systematic and differential treatment of the auditors by the subjects of the study can be directly attributed to discrimination.

202 • Melissa M. McDonald, Carlos D. Navarrete, and Jim Sidanius $60,000 Whites

$50,000

Blacks

$47,814

Median annual income

Latinos

$40,000 $34,480

$35,151 $30,398

$30,000

$27,490 $24,738

$20,000

$10,000

$0 Men

Women

Figure 10.1 2006 median income by race and sex.

women (i.e., $260 more at initial offer, $231 more at final offer), black men were required to pay considerably more than white men for the same car, everything else being equal (i.e., $960 at initial offer, $1,133.6 at final offer; see Ayres, 1995). Perhaps, the clearest way to appreciate gender-moderated racial differences in discrimination can be found in criminal justice outcomes. Figure 10.2 gives ratios of imprisonment in state and federal prisons for blacks and whites, and Latinos and whites as a function of gender for the year 2006. In sum, black men were imprisoned at a rate six times greater than that of white men. In contrast, the racial disparity among black and white women was less extreme, with black women being imprisoned at a rate three times greater than that of white women. This same basic pattern also held with respect to whites and Latinos. In addition, Ayres and Waldfogel (1994) have shown that racial discrimination in bail amounts is only found with respect to black and Latino men, and not with respect to black or Latino women. Similar patterns of gendered racial discrimination have been substantiated within the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom (Hood & Cordovil, 1992). Recently, research has demonstrated the utility of using a classical conditioning paradigm to investigate psychological biases toward threatening or feared stimuli, including racial out-groups. For example, Olsson, Ebert, Banaji, and Phelps (2005) demonstrated that


White subordinate imprisonment ratio

7

6

5 Men 4

Women

3

2

1 Black/White ratio

Latino/White ratio

Figure 10.2 Ratio of black/white and Latino/white incarceration in American state and federal prisons as a function of sex in the year 2006.

conditioned fear toward facial displays of individuals belonging to a racial group other than one’s own resists extinction, whereas fear toward faces of one’s own racial group does not. Their results held for both white and black American research participants toward white and black out-group targets. In an extension of this work, Navarrete et al. (2009) demonstrated that the extinction bias directed toward out-group faces is specific to the faces of men only, that is, there are no differences in the extinction of conditioned fear between the faces of ingroup women, out-group women, or in-group men; it is only out-group men faces that engender a resistance to extinction. Most importantly, these results demonstrate that, using a unique measurement of racial bias that precludes conscious control, psychological biases are primarily directed toward out-group men, not women. In addition, although much of the research investigating the targets of intergroup prejudice has focused only on subordinate groups as targets, these results find that both black and white participants exhibit a bias in response to men of their respective out-groups. This result lends support to our claim that the target of prejudice need not necessarily be a member of a subordinate group, but that this may often be the case given the asymmetries in power that often exist between subordinate and dominant groups.


In sum, the research detailed in this section has provided an abundance of evidence suggesting that when arbitrary-set out-group discrimination occurs, it is primarily men who serve as the targets of this discrimination. We now turn to research examining the agent side of intergroup prejudice. We intend to demonstrate that it is primarily men who fill this role but qualify this statement with the expectation that women will also exhibit prejudice toward out-group men, but that this prejudice reflects a distinct underlying motivation that differs from the primary motives of men. Agents of Intergroup Prejudice Keeping the distinction between out-group negativity and in-group favoritism in mind (see Brewer, 1979, 2007), our argument is not that in-group bias or in-group favoritism is gendered, but rather that it is out-group hostility and aggression that will tend to be gendered (see also Brown & Smith, 1989; Khan & Lambert, 1998; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). That is, in addition to the evolutionary reasoning reviewed above, there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that men display greater outgroup hostility, xenophobia, derogation, and aggression than do women. Using survey methodology, Sidanius and Ekehammar (Ekehammar & Sidanius, 1982; Sidanius & Ekehammar, 1980) were among the first to systematically explore gender differences with respect to xenophobia and classical racism. In two relatively large and independent samples of Swedish high school students, not only did men tend to be more politically conservative in general* but they appeared to be particularly more xenophobic than their female counterparts. Shortly after the appearance of these first Swedish studies, other scholars began to replicate these gender differences using samples of British, South African, and Swedish respondents (see Ekehammar, 1985; Furnham, 1985; Marjoribanks, 1981). Although theses early results are quite suggestive, they often did not compare men and women using exactly the same set of racism items across different samples, nor did they use racism items specifically selected with a clear negative tone of out-group hostility and superiority/inferiority. Therefore, we compared the largest Swedish data set originally collected by Sidanius and Ekehammar in 1979 with a moderately sized sample of high school students from Melbourne, Australia, collected in 1985.† To measure the construct of “classical racism” in as dominance oriented a fashion as the data would permit, we defined * With the exception of religiosity, where women were found to be consistently more religious than men. † See description of Australian data set in Sidanius and Peña (2003).


racism by the degree of endorsement of a single item, “white superiority.” The results showed the expected gender difference, with men exhibiting significantly higher levels of support for white superiority than women within both Sweden and Australia (Figure 10.3). These same gender differences were replicated in the United States in a large sample of graduate and undergraduate students at the University of Texas at Austin in 1986 (Sidanius, Cling, & Pratto, 1991). In this study, classical racism was operationalized by the degree of support for the following five items: (1) “racial equality,” (2) “a black President of the USA,” (3) “each ethnic group should stay in its own place,” (4) “there are too many blacks on campus,” and (5) “white superiority.” Results indicated that, across six ethnic categories of participants, men exhibited more explicitly racist attitudes than women (see Figure 10.4). Similar findings were observed in a study conducted approximately 10 years later at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA; Sidanius, Levin, van Laar, & Sears, 2008). Once again, classical racism was measured by items implying intergroup dominance and superiority/inferiority. Specifically, classical racism was indexed by the degree to which students endorsed the two statements: (1) “blacks are inherently inferior” and (2) “Latinos are inherently inferior.” Across four different ethnic categories of participants, and consistent with the results found in

Support for white superiority

2.5

2.25

2

1.75

Gender

1.5

Male Female

Sweden

Australia Country

Figure 10.3 Support for white superiority as a function of gender and nationality (Sweden, N = 772, and Australia, N = 274, in 1979 and 1985).


2.00

Mean racism score

1.80

1.60

1.40 Gender

1.20

Male Female

Whites Blacks Latinos Asians Others Foreign Ethnic group

Figure 10.4 Classical racism as a function of gender and ethnicity among University of Texas students in 1986 (N = 5,610).

Sweden, Australia, and Texas, the California data showed significantly higher levels of classical racism among men than among women (see Figure 10.5). Importantly, there is evidence that these gender differences have persisted into post-Obama America and in a nonstudent sample. In a large sample of Harvard study pool participants and adult members of the Boston and Cambridge communities collected in 2009, men had significantly higher levels of racism than women, within both the student and nonstudent groups (see Figure 10.6). Social dominance theorists have long argued that not only should one find greater explicit racism and xenophobia against specific ethnic groups (i.e., blacks, Latinos) among men relative to women, but that this greater out-group hostility among men should extend to arbitraryset out-groups in general. This desire to establish and maintain dominant/subordinate relationships vis-à-vis a broad array of social groups is referred to as social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In the last 20 years, SDO has become one of the most widely studied constructs within the field of intergroup relations and has been shown to predict negative attitudes against a wide range of denigrated social groups such as Jews, blacks, Muslims, Arabs, gays, women, Latinos, Asians, foreigners,


Mean racism scores

2.25

2.00

1.75

1.50 Gender Male Female

1.25 Whites

Asians

Middle Others Easterners Ethnic group Latinos

Figure 10.5 Classical racism as a function of gender and ethnicity among UCLA students in 1996 (N = 1,694).

Mean racism scores

2.00

1.80

1.60

Gender Male Female

1.40 Non-Harvard student Harvard student Student status

Figure 10.6 Classical racism as a function of gender and student status in 2009 (N = 2,592).


immigrants, refugees, poor people, and even minimal out-groups (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998; Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, & Mihic, 2008; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius, Pratto, & Mitchell, 1994; Thomsen, Green & Sidanius, 2008). In addition, SDO has also been found to strongly predict a wide variety of group-relevant social attitudes and legitimizing ideologies such as social conservatism, racism, sexism, belief in the protestant work ethic, just world beliefs, support for free market capitalism, patriotism, nationalism, support for wars of aggression, opposition to wars for humanitarian reasons, and a range of other group-relevant social beliefs and ideologies (e.g., Pratto et al., 1994, 2000; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In what has been labeled the invariance hypothesis, and for reasons outlined above, social dominance theorists have argued that, everything else being equal, men should display higher levels of SDO than women. The invariance hypothesis has been one of the most thoroughly examined and confirmed hypotheses within SDT. There is now very considerable and consistent evidence in support of this hypothesis found in scores of different studies, over dozens of different cultures, and using thousands of respondents (e.g., Levin, 2004; Pratto, Stallworth, & Sidanius, 1997; Sidanius, Levin, Liu, & Pratto, 2000; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994; Sidanius, Pratto, & Brief, 1995; Sidanius, Sinclair, & Pratto, 2006). Most recently, Lee, Pratto, and Johnson (2009) conducted a meta-analysis using some 74 published and unpublished studies conducted between 1979 and 2004 on gender differences with respect to SDO. The data set contained 117 samples across 21 countries and employed 18,178 male and 20,524 female participants. Results revealed very robust gender differences that were particularly stable from sample to sample. Thus, these data clearly indicate that men not only have higher levels of prejudice against a particular out-group (i.e., blacks), but this higher level of out-group hostility among men seems to apply to out-groups in general.*

* There are two versions of the invariance hypothesis: the strong version and the weak version (see Sidanius et al., 1995). The strong version expects SDO differences between men and women to be impervious to moderation (e.g., culture, gender role norms), and the weak version allows for the possibility that the gender differences in SDO might be moderated by factors in the social context (e.g., level of intergroup threat, ethnic homogeneity, power equality between men and women). However, the weak version would expect that this possible interaction between gender and contextual potential moderators will be ordinal rather than disordinal in nature. This is to say that while the degree to which men have higher SDO levels than women might vary across different contexts, this interaction will not produce higher SDO scores among women than among men, everything else being equal.


It should be noted that most of the aforementioned research, providing support for the prediction that men will be the primary agents of intergroup prejudice, appears to be primarily found with respect to aggressive and dominance-tinged forms of out-group prejudice. When dealing with more benign and less dominance-accented out-group discrimination, there is not only less consistent evidence of greater prejudice among men than women, but here women may be the more discriminating gender. In a review of the literature addressing gender differences in racial attitudes, Hughes and Tuch (2003) argue that in many domains, there are either no significant gender differences in racial attitudes or women express more biased attitudes than men. Interestingly, and largely in support of our predictions on the underlying motivations of women’s prejudice, many of the domains in which women exhibit greater prejudice than men concern issues of intimacy, that is, women are less accepting of close social relationships with out-group men (Bogardus, 1928, 1959; Muir, 1990; Muir & McGlamery, 1984; Owen, Eisner, & McFaul, 1977). In their own research, Hughes and Tuch (2003) investigated two large nationally representative surveys in the United States for evidence of gender differences in racial attitudes. Although men were found to exhibit more racially intolerant attitudes than women on a number of items, these effects were generally quite small in magnitude, largely inconsistent, and often disappeared when the authors included a number of control variables (education, age, political ideology, religiosity, etc.). In more recent work, Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, and Simonson (2008) investigated racial preferences in the context of a speed dating study and found that women exhibit stronger racial preferences than men, such that women are more likely to exhibit same-race dating preferences. Putting all of these findings together, the data seem to suggest that men’s racial prejudice is greater than that of women with respect to more aggressive and dominance-oriented forms of arbitrary-set prejudice (e.g., endorsement of white superiority and black inferiority) but not with respect to various forms of in-group favoritism and social distance. Although there seems to be abundant evidence in support of the predictions that men will be the primary agents of aggressive and dominance-oriented intergroup prejudice, there is at least some evidence that is not quite consistent with this expectation. For example, Haley, Sidanius, Lowery, and Malamuth (2004) found that white and black study participants recommended the most severe punishments for crimes when they were described as being committed by a male target belonging to a racial out-group rather than a female out-group target, or male and female in-group targets. Although this finding is


consistent with the “target-side” prediction of the SMTH, they also reported that there were no significant sex differences among research participants. That is, male and female study participants demonstrated equal amounts of bias against out-group men. Thus, even with some apparently hostile forms of intergroup bias (e.g., relatively severe criminal sanctions) where men are victimized more than women, it is not always the case that men will be the strongest advocates for aggressive outcomes. Clearly, more work needs to be done to uncover exactly when men will and will not act more aggressively toward out-group men than will women. Motivations for Prejudice Although we have asserted that women should be motivated to avoid out-group men in order to protect reproductive choice, it is important to note that such behavior does not come without costs. In practice, active avoidance of out-group men requires heightened cognitive attention to threatening cues and the exertion of energy as one attempts to avoid potential threats. This increase in cognitive effort and expended energy comes at the cost of failing to direct that effort toward other tasks also crucial to survival and reproduction. Taking such costs into consideration, it is likely that an avoidance mechanism selected to protect female choice would be calibrated to influence behavior during times when reproductive choice is at greatest risk, that is, during ovulation, or when copulation is most likely to result in conception. It may also be the case that an avoidance mechanism would be sensitive to variations among women in the extent to which they appraise themselves as being vulnerable to sexual coercion. In this way, avoidance and fear of outgroup men is greatest among women who perceive themselves as being particularly vulnerable to such threats, and during times when the risk is greatest, thereby minimizing the energy expended in the service of protecting a woman’s reproductive choice. To test these predictions, Navarrete, Fessler, Santos Fleischman, and Geyer (2009) designed a study to investigate the influence of conception risk and perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion on the expression of race bias. In a university sample of white women, the researchers found that conception risk (a value reflecting a woman’s proximity to the ovulatory period within her menstrual cycle) was positively associated with greater race bias. Importantly, race bias was measured in a variety of ways, including an explicit measure, two implicit measures (stereotype and evaluative implicit association tests; Amodio & Devine, 2006), a measure of fear of male targets, and a measure of mate preferences. When these measures were formed into a composite variable, the


relationship between conception risk and race bias was r = .45. In addition, the authors performed a regression analysis predicting race bias as a function of conception risk and an individual difference measure of perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion (e.g., “I avoid going out alone at night” and “I am wary of men”; Senn & Dzinas, 1996). The results revealed a two-way interaction such that the relationship between race bias and conception risk was greatest when perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion was high. In an extension of these findings, Navarrete, McDonald, Molina, and Sidanius (2010) found that a woman’s perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion is more strongly related to fear of out-group men than any other combination of race and gender (i.e., in-group men, out-group women, in-group women). The results of these studies support our contention that women’s prejudice serves specific goals, namely, the protection of women’s reproductive choice via increased fear toward and avoidance of out-group men when the threat to reproductive choice is greatest. As was the case with women, it is also important to consider the potential costs incurred by men who use an approach-oriented strategy to dominate sexual rivals of the out-group. It should already be clear that among men, intergroup conflict is a high-risk/high-reward endeavor where the losers often lose their lives. As such, the propensity to engage in such a strategy likely requires more than the basic desire to dominate the men of the out-group; one must also appraise oneself as a formidable opponent. The greatest expressions of out-group bias then should be displayed by men who most strongly desire to dominate the out-group and who also perceive themselves as being best equipped to overcome the steep costs of conflict. In an attempt to understand the male-specific psychology of prejudice, Navarrete et al. (2010) examined how individual differences in dominance motivations and aggressive formidability interact to predict race bias. The authors used a measure of SDO (Pratto et al., 1994) to assess one’s desire to dominate out-groups. Aggressive formidability was assessed using a measure of aggressive behavior (Buss & Perry, 1992). Results revealed a three-way interaction, such that, among men, explicit race bias was related to aggression most strongly when SDO was high. In other words, race bias was greatest among men with a history of aggressive behavior and greater social dominance motives. In contrast, the interaction of SDO and aggression did not predict increased race bias among women. Altogether, these results support the notion that race bias is moderated by separate psychological systems within men and women, being associated with the combination of aggressive formidability


and dominance motivations among men and vulnerability to sexual coercion among women, particularly when threats to reproductive choice are most costly. Furthermore, these results, in combination with those previously discussed, provide compelling evidence that both men and women exhibit out-group prejudice, that this prejudice is primarily directed toward out-group men, and that the targeted out-group need not necessarily be a subordinate or minority group. In addition, this research has generated evidence in support of the prediction that prejudice directed toward out-group men is predicted by different traits for men and women that reflect different underlying motivations, specifically fear of sexual coercion among women and aggressive social dominance ideation among men.

DISCUSSION In our revisiting of SMTH proposed by SDT, we have attempted to fit it into a firmer conceptual grounding in evolutionary theory, namely the theories of parental investment and sexual selection; in doing so, we have clarified and extended the predictions asserted by the SMTH. First, we have reasoned that the differences in obligate parental investment between men and women have set up an incentive structure that favors competitive and risky behavior among men in the service of acquiring mating opportunities. The logic behind intrasexual competition among men was then extrapolated to intergroup relations where in-group men compete with out-group men for access to territory, status, mates, and other resources. Because women are considered a highly valued resource among men, they are not targeted as members of out-groups for harm or debilitation, but are instead often incorporated into the winning group. This logic confirms the initial prediction of the SMTH that men serve as the primary targets and agents of intergroup aggression. However, the SMTH additionally specified that it should be men of subordinate groups who are primarily targeted. We have attempted to revise this assertion using logic from parental investment theory and sexual selection and have also cited evidence in which subordinate groups have displayed intergroup biases toward dominant groups. Second, we have tried to clarify the types of intergroup prejudice that men and women are likely to be the agents for. We have suggested that there is little reason for gender differences with respect to intergroup prejudice manifested as in-group bias and in-group favoritism. Rather, it is within the domain of intergroup prejudice expressed as out-group denigration, social predation, and the violent establishment of dominant/subordinate intergroup architecture where one


should expect gender differences. Thus, men are expected to not only express a greater general willingness to establish and maintain systems of dominant/subordinate intergroup relations (e.g., as expressed by higher levels of classical racism and social dominance orientation), but also actively engage in very dangerous and violent forms of intergroup competition (e.g., hate crimes, gang wars, intertribal and interstate war). Finally, we have argued that the initial prediction made by the SMTH that men should act as the primary agents of intergroup aggression must be clarified to reflect a female-specific psychology of intergroup prejudice. Specifically, as a function of a long evolutionary history of being subjected to violent sexual aggression, women may have evolved psychological mechanisms that foster fear and avoidance of out-group men. As such, men’s intergroup prejudice can be characterized as an approach-oriented strategy motivated by the desire for social dominance, whereas women’s intergroup prejudice can be characterized as an avoidance strategy, motivated by the desire to protect one’s reproductive choices. The net results of these clarifications and extensions have prompted us to summarize these expectations with the label, “Theory of Gendered Prejudice.” This new perspective emphasizes the importance of exploring racism, ethnocentrism, and arbitrary-set prejudice as a gendered phenomenon. That is, in studying the psychology of intergroup prejudice, the consideration of the gender of the target, the gender of its agents, and the character of the prejudice (i.e., as in-group favoritism or as out-group aggression) are key to understanding the fundamental nature of prejudice. We also hope that we have demonstrated the utility inherent in the integration of theories from the natural sciences with those from social psychology. Our use of parental investment and sexual selection theories provided a useful guide in understanding the functions served by prejudice and also in generating hypotheses regarding a gender-specific psychology of prejudice. We believe we have provided important clarifications and extensions of SDT that assist in framing intergroup prejudice as a functional endeavor in which men and women, through different mechanisms, cope with the gender-specific threats associated with intergroup conflict. Although evolutionarily informed theories of social behavior are sometimes met with charges of biological determinism, we hope that it is clear from our arguments that we have not asserted invariant mechanisms that will inevitably lead to prejudiced behavior. Instead, we have attempted to illustrate the flexibility of these mechanisms as a function of the costs and benefits associated with the expression of prejudice. For example, the costs of intergroup aggression make it such that only those


men both with the goal of group domination and who appraise themselves as being aggressively equipped to meet the demands of the interaction are likely to pursue such a strategy. Among women, intergroup prejudice varies as a function of one’s self-perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion and is also temporally influenced by hormonal fluctuations throughout the menstrual cycle. To be sure, intergroup prejudice is a relentlessly persistent phenomenon that has transcended time and geography, so to suggest that its underlying mechanisms are flexible certainly does not mean that they are easily manipulated to reduce the expression of racist and xenophobia attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. However, understanding these mechanisms is a necessary, albeit certainly not sufficient, first step in the right direction. In our exploration of the underlying mechanisms of intergroup prejudice, we have certainly not been as comprehensive as is necessary for a complete account of the psychology of prejudice in all its forms, and there are surely a variety of other mechanisms at play. For example, relatively recent work on the behavioral immune system suggests that fear and avoidance of out-group members may serve the function of limiting contact with groups that have been exposed to parasites or diseases to which one’s group has not developed an immunity (e.g., Schaller & Duncan, 2007). Additionally, although we have attempted to provide a foundation for understanding a female-specific psychology of prejudice, a comprehensive account is lacking, particularly in the domain of female coalitional aggression. Though perhaps more rare than male coalitional aggression, and possibly of a different form that is more akin to “clique” psychology (e.g., Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Hess & Hagen, 2006), research in this area could conceivably provide important insights regarding women’s prejudice and is waiting to be developed in greater detail. It is also apparent from years of research that many factors play an important role in the propagation of prejudiced beliefs and behavior. It should be clear, then, that no single theory can carry the burden of explaining and understanding the nature of racism and ethnocentrism. An integrative theoretical framework supported by empirical evidence is crucial for research on the nature of intergroup relations to progress. Finally, we would like to say a word about Marilynn Brewer’s influence on the thinking in this chapter. While none of the authors of this chapter have had the privilege of being either graduate students or postdocs under Marilynn Brewer, one of us (Jim Sidanius) did have the invaluable opportunity of having Marilynn as a senior colleague at UCLA for five marvelous years. While no one can accuse Marilynn of being a social dominance theorist, my frequent theoretical encounters


and disputes with her over this all too short 5-year period had a profound influence on me as a maturing academic and on the subsequent development of SDT. Most memorably, it was Marilynn’s gentle, but insightful querying and probing of my early thinking within SDT that led to the development of the notion of the counterbalancing effects of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating social forces, an idea which has come to play a central role in SDT. I was heartbroken when Marilynn decided to leave UCLA to take up a position at Ohio State University in 1993. Although we still maintained contact after her departure, nothing could replace the almost daily exposure to her wise counsel and sharp intelligence. Marilynn Brewer has influenced me in more ways than almost any other living scholar I can think of. I cannot thank her enough for simply being who she is.

REFERENCES Alexander, R. D. (1979). Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Almquist, E. M. (1975). Untangling the effects of race and sex: The disadvantaged status of black women. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 129–142. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652–661. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A metaanalytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322. Ayres, I. (1991). Fair driving: Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard Law Review, 104, 817–872. Ayres, I. (1995). Further evidence of discrimination in new car negotiations and estimates of its cause. Michigan Law Review, 94, 109–147. Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review, 85, 304–322. Ayres, I., & Waldfogel, J. (1994). A market test for race discrimination in bail setting. Stanford Law Review, 46, 987–1047. Baker, M. D., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Male risk-taking as a context-sensitive signaling device. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1136–1139. Bamforth, D. B. (1994). Indigenous people, indigenous violence: Precontact warfare on the North American Great Plains. Man, 29, 95–115. Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368. Beale, F. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The black woman (pp. 90–100). New York: New American Library.

216 • Melissa M. McDonald, Carlos D. Navarrete, and Jim Sidanius Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. Bogardus, E. S. (1928). Immigration and race attitudes. Lexington, MA: Heath. Bogardus, E. S. (1959). Social distance. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive–motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62, 728–738. Brown, R., & Smith, A. (1989). Perceptions of and by minority groups: The case of women in academia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 61–79. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://bjs.ojp. usdoj.gov/index.cfm. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology Review. Special Issue: Biopsychosocial Conceptualizations of Human Aggression, 17(6), 605–619. Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual aggression. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 203–252. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. New York: D. Appleton. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A metaanalytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330. Ekehammar, B. (1985). Sex differences in socio-political attitudes revisited. Educational Studies, 11(1), 3–9. Ekehammar, B., & Sidanius, J. (1982). Sex differences in socio-political ideology: A replication and extension. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 249–257. Ember, C. (1978). Myths about hunter-gatherers. Ethnology, 27, 239–248. Esses, V. M., Veenvliet, S., Hodson, G., & Mihic, L. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21(1), 4–25. Farley, R., & Allen, W. R. (1987). The color line and the quality and life in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2008). Racial preferences in dating. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 117–132. Furnham, A. (1985). Adolescents’ sociopolitical attitudes: A study of sex and national differences. Political Psychology, 6, 621–636.


Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grotpeter, J., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328–2338. Haley, H., Sidanius, J., Lowery, B., & Malamuth, N. (2004). The interactive nature of sex and race discrimination: A social dominance perspective. In G. Philogene (Ed.), Racial identity in context: The legacy of Kenneth B. Clark (pp. 149– 160). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Harlow, C. W. (2005). Hate crimes reported by victims and police. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. National Criminal Victimization Survey and Uniform Crime Reporting. NCJ209911. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://www. udel.edu/soc/tammya/pdf/harlow%20hate%20crimes%202005.pdf Hess, N. H., & Hagen, E. H. (2006). Sex differences in indirect aggression: Psychological evidence from young adults. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 231–245. Hood, R., & Cordovil, G. (1992). Race and sentencing: A study in the Crown Court. A report for the Commission for Racial Equality. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Hughes, M., & Tuch, S. A. (2003). Gender differences in whites’ racial attitudes: Are women’s attitudes really more favorable? Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 384–401. Keegan, J. (1993). The history of warfare. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. New York: Oxford University Press. Khan, S., & Lambert, A. J. (1998). In-group favoritism versus black sheep effects in observations of informal conversations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 263–269. Kleinjans, K. J. (2009). Do gender differences in preferences for competition matter for occupational expectations? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 701–710. Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208. Lee, I., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2009). Support of social hierarchy: Individualistic cultures, liberal political environments and decreased power differentials increase intergroup dissension. National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan. Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25, 31–48. Marjoribanks, K. (1981). Sex-related differences in socio-political attitudes: A replication. Educational Studies, 7, 1–6. McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada.

218 • Melissa M. McDonald, Carlos D. Navarrete, and Jim Sidanius Muir, D. E. (1990). A comparison of black and white integration attitudes on a Deep South campus: A research note. Sociological Spectrum, 10, 143–153. Muir, D. E., & McGlamery, C. D. (1984). Trends in integration attitudes on a Deep South campus during the first two decades of desegregation. Social Forces, 62, 963–972. Navarrete, C. D., Fessler, D. M. T., Santos Fleischman, D., & Geyer, J. (2009). Race bias tracks conception risk across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 20(6), 661–665. Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An out-group male target hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 933–945. Navarrete, C. D., Olsson, A., Ho, A. K., Mendes, W., Thomsen, L., & Sidanius, J. (2009). Fear extinction to an out-group face: The role of target gender. Psychological Science, 20(2), 155–158. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101. Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science. Special Issue: Drug Discovery: Big Risks, Big Rewards, 309, 785–787. Owen, C. A., Eisner, H. C., & McFaul, T. R. (1977). A half-century of social distance research: National replication of the Bogardus’ studies. Sociology and Social Research, 66, 80–98. Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H. et al. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369–409. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–68. Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310–342. Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509. Schaller, M., & Duncan, L. A. (2007). The behavioral immune system: Its evolution and social psychological implications. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 293–307). New York: Psychology Press. Senn, C. Y., & Dzinas, K. (1996). Measuring fear of rape: A new scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 141–144.


Sidanius, J., Cling, B. J., & Pratto, F. (1991). Ranking and linking as a function of sex and gender role attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 131–149. Sidanius, J., & Ekehammar, B. (1979). Political socialization: A multivariate analysis of Swedish political attitude and preference data. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 265–279. Sidanius, J., & Ekehammar, B. (1980). Sex-related differences in socio-political ideology. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 17–26. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J. H., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: An extension and crosscultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41–67. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sears, D. O. (2008). The diversity challenge: Social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. Sidanius, J., & Peña, Y. (2003). The gendered nature of family structure and group-based anti-egalitarianism: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 243–251. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Brief, D. (1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16, 381–396. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 151–167. Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social dominance orientation, gender and increasing college exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1640–1653. Sidanius, J., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and Race Discrimination: The Interactive Nature of Disadvantage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. The claremont symposium on applied social psychology, (pp. 47–69). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smith, D. J. (1976). The facts of racial disadvantage: A national survey. PEP Report, vol. XLII. London: George Berridge & Co. Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn. Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). Gender differences in aggression: The role of status and personality in competitive interactions. Sex Roles, 59, 814–826. Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How SDO and RWA fuels ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455–1464.

220 • Melissa M. McDonald, Carlos D. Navarrete, and Jim Sidanius Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. (2000). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1988). The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations. Institute for Evolutionary Studies: Technical Report #88-1. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of Man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18(1), 19–23. Wrangham, R. W., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

11 INTERGROUP RELATIONS AND MAJORITY OR MINORITY GROUP INFLUENCE William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich

The study of intergroup relations almost inevitably involves consideration of the relation between majority and minority groups, for it is rare that interacting groups share equal billing across all relevant comparison dimensions, and these differing dimensions often are materially involved in the definition of in-group and out-group, and majority or minority status. Though the linkage is obvious, research focused specifically on the association of intergroup relations with the majority and minority status of interacting groups is not nearly as common as might be expected, and this is unfortunate as each area has much to commend itself to the other (see Brewer & Weber, 1994; Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, 2007). In this review, we suggest some of the potential gains that may be realized by closer consideration of the integration of research insights drawn from the two areas, insights that would allow the advances of each field to enlighten the other. This integration is far from complete, as the requisite data for a full-blown amalgamation are unavailable; however, even the embryonic combinations suggested here will highlight some of the advances that may be made with closer consideration of the mutuality of research drawn from these two critical areas. The unwritten back story is that this integration may draw together research on social influence or persuasion concerned with group processes and intergroup interaction. As these foci are the defining aspects of the discipline, this integration would bode well for

221

222 • William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich

the future of social psychology and its likely contributions to science and even, perhaps, to society at large.

IN-GROUPS AND OUT-GROUPS The etiology and manifestation of in-group and out-group dynamics and the impact of these social differentiations on individual behavior are well documented, though extrapolations from the standard research models sometimes are overextended. Considerable research suggests that among other features, in-group members share a common identity, interdependent group norms, collective group goals, and common experiences (Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1997; Brewer & Campbell, 1976; Campbell, 1958; Gaertner & Schopler, 1998; Lickel et al., 2000; Sherif, 1965, 1966, 1996; Welbourne, 1999). However, while there is little doubt that we differentiate among groups, there also is little doubt that these differentiations may be quite fluid and affected by a host of factors over and above those directly relevant to group membership. The adoption of a one-variable-at-a-time mentality can obstruct consideration of other common factors that moderate social interaction. A critical question to be addressed in any consideration of intergroup relations is, “How do in-groups and, by extension, out-groups, come about?” Tajfel (1970, 1978, 1981) provided one answer to this question— an admittedly incomplete one—when he discovered that people often display a propensity to group themselves and those around them into meaningful social categories on the basis of even trivial features, and to use these groupings in evaluating others who are, or are not, included in the grouping. This mere categorization tendency has been more than adequately documented in research using the minimal group paradigm and has been the source of hundreds of social psychological studies, many of which look suspiciously like others that already have seen the light of day. We might consider these as minimal contributions to understanding the minimal group paradigm. In this paradigm, participants choose between options that are designed to have little evaluative implication: “Which do you prefer, the Kandinsky or the Klee? Still or sparkling? Catsup or mayo?” Based on choices of this type, respondents are categorized into one of two groups, and then typically are tasked with allocating rewards to the group-categorized members. Although these differentiations are trivial, the reinforcements allocated to in-group and out-group members often differ substantially. An art critic might feel that the distinction between Klee and Kandinsky is far from trivial, and thus the differential response may have some basis. However, one would

Intergroup Relations and Majority or Minority Group Influence • 223

be hard put to justify allocation and evaluation differences based on information that some individuals tend to overestimate the number of black dots projected onto a white screen, while others tend to underestimate, especially when these individuals are assigned at random to overestimator or underestimator strata. Even if this were not so, there would seem to be nothing of intrinsic value differentiating one group from the other. Yet, those assigned to one or the other of such groups have been shown repeatedly to be ready and willing to discriminate on the basis of this and similar whimsical distinctions. Though well documented and reliable, the tendency to group on trivial bases and then use the resultant group status to structure in-group and out-group relations has limits, which all too often are glossed over (see Diehl, 1988, 1989, 1990). The tendency to overgeneralize the typical minimal group findings does not mitigate the central result, but it certainly forestalls more comprehensive understanding. It seems that the in-group = deserving and out-group = unworthy interpretation owes, in part, to the use of research designs that have focused determinately and exclusively on the distribution of positive outcomes to in-group or out-group members in the minimal group paradigm for, indeed, the great majority of minimal group studies have used the allocation of positive rewards as the critical outcome variable, despite warnings about the threats to generalizability that such mindless consistency entails (Crano & Brewer, 2002; Dobbs & Crano, 2001). This tendency to focus on the provision of positive reinforcements probably is a result of researchers’ propensity to follow the lead of early research in the field, which almost unswervingly made use of Tajfel allocation matrices as the central dependent measure despite Tajfel and colleagues’ early insistence that allocating penalties in lieu of rewards was an acceptable indication of discrimination in the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971, pp. 153–154). What happens when in-group members must allocate negative outcomes? Even in the absence of data, it seems reasonable to assume that when outcome valences change, distributional tendencies may be altered as well. Research suggests that this conclusion should be considered seriously and its implications for social relations carefully explored. Dobbs and Crano (2001), for example, found that merely making allocators accountable in a minimal group reward distribution task mitigated in-group favoritism, and this tendency was especially pronounced when the allocator was of majority group status. Such participants appeared unwilling to overallocate positive reinforcements to fellow majority in-group members at the expense of members of minority out-groups. Apparently, even in-group favoritism has its limits.


Mummendey et al. (1992) showed that the mere categorization effect could be mitigated when the allocation task involved negative outcomes (e.g., allocating the amount of time another must spend in an uncomfortably noisy room). She posited an “aggravation hypothesis” to account for her findings, speculating that “negative stimuli may lead to a more analytic, more careful, more accurate way of processing the information in the social situation provided” (Mummendey, 1995, p. 667). This kind of thoughtful, careful appraisal may not be entirely consistent with quotidian behavior, but it does occur—at least sometimes—and certainly deserves study in any serious discussion of intergroup interaction. Why should these anomalous results matter? Because they could result in, or be the result of, a superordinate recategorization of the (out-group) target, which could personalize the dynamics of the allocation setting, thereby dampening discrimination (Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996; Wenzel et al., 2007). The superordinate recategorization process may offer important insights to those working to develop ways of minimizing the damaging effects of ethnic, racial, or sexual discrimination in real-world contexts. Mummendey’s aggravation model might even be seen as a lead-in to the proposition that although we do, indeed, tend to value those with whom we share a common group identity, this tendency does not inevitably lead to discrimination against our out-groups, a position consistent with Brewer’s (1999a) convincing argument. Both Brewer (1991, 1993) and Mummendey (Mummendey, 1995; Mummendey & Otten, 1998) have argued for a more nuanced view of the process by which social identities are formed and operate in determining intragroup and intergroup dynamics, with Brewer & Weber (1994) arguing that the distinctive in-group identity that is characteristic of minority group members is likely to facilitate “unit formation” and “reduced differentiation” among (fellow minority) group members, whereas majority group members appear more likely to engage in interpersonal comparison with in-group members, which may result in contrast effects. Spears and Lea’s (1994) social identity deindividuation model has provided a theoretical framework for organizing these possibilities, which certainly could not be anticipated on the basis of the simple extrapolation from the admittedly common and consistent results typical of the mere categorization studies, which support the idea that we reward our in-group and, by extension in zero-sum contexts, punish the out-group (see also Postmes & Spears, 1998; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995). Although considerable research supports the general conclusion that in-group members do value the in-group more than the out-group and respond


to and reward group members accordingly—especially in circumstances involving distributions of positive outcomes—understanding the conditions under which the common distribution and evaluation rules do not apply is useful and enlightening in developing a more complete understanding of factors that affect intergroup relations.

SELF-EVALUATION In addition to affecting intergroup relations, our group memberships have considerable influence on the ways we evaluate ourselves. Social identity theory is focused on the manner in which groups interact, with considerations of the in-group or out-group nature of interacting groups or collectives and with our assessments of these groups on our self-evaluations (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In their self-categorization extension of social identity theory, Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell (1987) proposed that our personal identity is concerned with the ways in which we interface with members of our own (in-)groups. Self-categorization is concerned principally with the ways the individual’s self-concept is established or bolstered. When personal identity is made salient, people often use other in-group individuals to help them judge the quality of their abilities, or the correctness of their beliefs. Past research has provided valuable insight into how this process unfolds. More than a half century ago, Leon Festinger described the operation of this process in his theory of social comparison. He proposed that we would use others as comparison partners in uncertain social contexts when objective methods of judging one’s relative skill level or the correctness of one’s beliefs were unavailable (Festinger, 1954). We could learn how to behave under uncertainty by monitoring and emulating the behaviors of others. Admittedly, this tack is susceptible to the dangers of pluralistic ignorance, but in general seems to work well if certain constraints are honored (Brewer & Crano, 1994; Miller & McFarland, 1991). Festinger was quick to point out that the choice of comparison partners was far from whimsical, insisting that comparators must be similar, at least in terms of the feature under comparison. Thus, in the absence of an objective gold standard, a chess grand master might seek to compare with other masters to gain insight into the quality of his or her game. The grand master would not be likely to use either author of this review as comparators, as neither would provide much in the way of opposition and thus the comparison would not allow an informative self-assessment of chess ability for either party. Research on the tendency of individuals to choose similar comparators has not proved overly supportive of the theory, as an uncomfortable


number of studies have shown that similar others are not always sought for purposes of (social) comparison. Reflecting on their failure to confirm the expectations of social comparison theory, Olson, Ellis, and Zanna (1983) suggested that the particular judgment under study could play a significant role in perceivers’ choices of comparators: “The nature of the judgment itself affects the strength of the drive (for social comparison). Indeed, the objective-subjective dimension may have additional implications not yet explored. … For example, individuals may prefer similar others for evaluating judgments they consider to be subjective, but the similarity of referent others may be less important for evaluating objective judgments” (p. 433). In research relevant to this possibility, Gorenflo and Crano (1989) showed in two experiments that participants preferred to compare their judgments with similar ones only when the task was cast as involving subjective preferences; when the (same) task was perceived as involving objective judgments, they preferred to consider assessments that they knew to be inconsistent with their own. Extrapolating these findings to a group context suggests that in-group members may be more highly valued as information sources of, and preferred models for, identifying in-group expectations, abilities, attitudes, norms, and behaviors (Brown, Novick, Lord, & Richards, 1992; David & Turner, 2001a, 2001b; Goethals & Darley, 1977; Miller & Prentice, 1997; Miller, Turnbull, & McFarland, 1988). However, in objective judgment contexts, we might prefer outsiders, as they may be prone to different sources of invalidity than in-group members, and hence may be more useful sources of information when matters of fact are under consideration. If I do not know the name of major league baseball’s most valuable player in 1996, there is a good chance that members of my faculty—an obvious in-group—might not either. On the other hand, members of a rival college’s baseball team might, and if the guess was important (e.g., the object of a large wager), I would be more prone to consider the information of the out-group as more useful for my purposes. In research that complements this reasoning, Brewer and Weber (1994) have provided a useful discussion of the activation of intragroup or intergroup assimilation or contrast comparison processes as a function of the perceiver’s in-group or out-group membership status in majority or minority groups. Their research revealed that majority group members tended show contrast effects in self-evaluative comparisons with in-group members, whereas members of minority groups were more likely to exhibit assimilation with fellow minority group members and contrast with out-group (majority) members. Research by Crano (1994) and Hannula-Bral (1994) supported the possibility that preference for in-group or out-group members as


information sources might vary as a function of task and context. Their study showed that in settings that involved subjective judgments in a norm formation task (i.e., one in which a group or individual preference had not been established), the (in-group) majority was more influential than an in-group minority. The groups had been created via an extension of the usual the minimal group paradigm. However, when the identical judgment task was thought to allow for an objective conclusion (i.e., one involving a consensually agreed upon “correct” answer), the in-group minority was more influential than the in-group majority. This result is intriguing as it points to a specific context in which in-group minorities may, in fact, enjoy a persuasive advantage. When the task involves an objective judgment on which there is not a strong established belief or preference, the minority may provoke greater message acceptance. With enhanced attention to its message and no established or vested position on the part of the audience, the minority’s message may prove even more influential than that of the majority. Crano and Hannula-Bral (1994) assumed that this outcome would occur owing to the enhanced salience of minorities, which, almost by definition, are more rare and unusual than the majority. As such, the minority’s persuasive communications were more likely than those of the majority to be attended to and elaborated. Under these circumstances, given a strong message and a context in which no strong position had been established, the usual resistance to minority influence was not expected. The hypothesized enhanced attention to the minority’s position coupled with a credible communication was expected to result in greater influence, and this expectation was confirmed. In a true attitude formation context, that is, one in which a strong position has not been established, these results foster the rather unusual prediction of the primacy of minority influence sources over majority sources (see also Olson & Kendrick, 2008). Crano and Hannula-Bral’s (1994) results lend support for this proposition and reemphasize the important distinction between attitude formation and attitude change, which has been noted only occasionally in previous research, but which deserves considerably more attention (Crano & Prislin, 2006; Johnson & Eagly, 1989, 1990; Walther & Langer, 2008).

IN-GROUP POSITIVITY The tendency to privilege the in-group can emerge in direct response to the degree to which the group has become integrated into one’s sense of self (Brewer, 2001; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997). Accordingly, we are more likely to provide support or assistance to in-group members,


while denying the same aid to out-group others (Gaertner, 1973; Halevy, Bornstein, & Sagiv, 2008). Generalizing to the realm of ethnocentrism, research has produced findings consistent with the implications of these expectations. The tendency to view one’s own group as vastly superior to an out-group, which often is regarded as inferior, loathsome, or contemptible, has been noted and commented upon for many years and has played a critical role in our understanding of intergroup relations. In LeVine and Campbell’s (1972) important and underappreciated monograph, the authors maintained that ethnocentrism could fuel cooperation within the group, with little regard to the fate of out-groups. Brewer (2001) acknowledged the possibility for intergroup attitudes to turn antagonistic, particularly in contexts involving scarcity or perceived out-group threat, but as we shall see, she did not view antagonism toward out-groups as inevitable. This insight has proved valuable in understanding the results of considerable research that identified strong in-group favoritism without accompanying out-group discrimination. LeVine and Campbell’s (1972) work followed on the heels of Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif’s (1961) classic robber’s cave experiment. In the grand tradition of intergroup competition research, many studies seeking to understand the development or the surmounting of intergroup conflict were produced by Sherif and Sherif (1953), Brewer and Brown (1998), Fiske (1998), and Sanders (2002), among others. The importance of this research theme is its identification of, and emphasis on, the importance of superordinate goals or shared adversity in fostering intergroup cooperation, which ultimately can lead to improved relations between the in-group and the out-group (Sherif, 1966). On the obverse of this coin, other research at this time demonstrated how competition with other groups, or perceived external threat, directly enhanced positive affect toward the in-group, combined with concomitant rise of negative affect or derogation of the out-group (Druckman, 1968; Rabbie, Benhoist, Oosterbaan, & Visser, 1974; Sanders, 2002; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). Even so, it would be a mistake to view derogation and disparagement as inevitable outcomes of intergroup competition, despite the consistent actions of right-wing leaders in the U.S. Congress. As Allport (1954) and others have argued, in-group pride, in-group patriotism, and other characteristic features of in-group positivity need not spring from aggression, derogation, or other forms of socially destructive hostility toward out-groups (Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997; Brewer, 1979, 2001; Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001; Cashdan, 2001; Feshbach, 1994; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Mummendey, Klink, & Brown, 2001; Rabbie, 1992; Struch & Schwartz, 1989; Turner,


1978). Obviously, bias often is manifested in response to the mere classification of people into separate groups (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & Silver, 1978; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Tajfel, 1970); however, this bias is not inevitable. Even young children when asked to make direct comparisons between their in-group and an out-group made judgments that indicated the emergence of in-group positivity in the absence of outgroup negativity (Kowalski, 2003). Bennett et al. (2004) have argued that out-group derogation toward out-group nationalities was not a requisite component for the formation of the positivity bias among youth reporting high favoritism or excessively positive attitudes about their own (in-group) nationality. These results are consistent with the findings of Mummendey et al. (1992), who showed that although individuals may actively seek to allocate benefits in a manner that advantages the in-group, they are disinclined to cause harm to the out-group. This result is especially likely when participants know they will be made to justify their behavior to those against whom they discriminated (Dobbs & Crano, 2001). In accord with the preponderance of evidence supporting the perspective that in-group bias need not arise primarily from out-group derogation, Brewer (1999b, p. 429) observed that “much in-group bias and intergroup discrimination is motivated by preferential treatment of in-group members rather than direct hostility toward out-group members,” and this position highlights several key principles that influence the development and progression of positive intergroup attitudes without reference to out-group negativity. Social categorization is recognized as an important component of the process that fosters identification of in-group similarities and out-group differences (Brewer, 2001; see also Doise, 1978; Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963). The level of identification and assimilation with an in-group can moderate the future development of favorable in-group attachments and attitudes and, eventually, in-group positivity. Partially due to consistency motives and some aspects of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), increases in assimilation to one’s in-group prompt more favorable evaluative attitudes toward that group. This process provides ample foundation for the development of in-group bias (Aberson, Healy, & Romero, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Further, social comparisons that shine a markedly positive light on one’s in-group compared with the out-group also bolster positive in-group affect. None of these positive group-favoring behaviors, however, necessarily involves a concomitant negative response to the out-group. Indeed, in some contexts involving minority group influence, research shows that minority out-groups are rarely derogated, even when they suggest positions extremely different from their audience’s established beliefs.


Often, the minority is not derogated even in these circumstances; indeed, Kruglanski and Mackie (1990) have suggested that minority group members actually may be admired for their courage in standing up for their beliefs. This response may not always result in persuasion, but it is unlikely to result in minority derogation, even if the minority is an outgroup. In their research using both in-group and out-group minorities as sources of counterattitudinal communications, Alvaro and Crano (1996, 1997) found that in-group minorities could affect group beliefs, but out-groups had no persuasive effects whatsoever. There was no correlation between respondents’ positions and that recommended by an out-group communication source. However, there also was no evidence of derogation, a result reminiscent of earlier results reported by Brewer and Crano (1968), who found that no matter how different their position is from the respondent’s, the out-group minority had no effect on in-group attitudes. Results of this type do not lend much credence to the necessity of out-group derogation in the service of in-group positivity. Of course, all bets are off if the out-group is seen as actively attempting to undermine the central core beliefs of the in-group, that is, the features that make the group a group. In that circumstance, a powerful riposte can be expected from the threatened in-group; indeed, in their discussion of the leniency model of minority influence, Crano and Seyranian (2009) argued that even in-group minorities that threaten important identity-defining features of the majority will be cast out into the outer darkness, otherwise known as the out-group.

OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS THEORY Research focused on motives and antecedents of group membership has yielded important theoretical contributions, many of which dovetail with insights into the workings of minority and majority groups. One such contribution is optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), which presupposes that social identification involves the interplay of motives to assimilate (or be included in a group) and to differentiate oneself from that group to bolster one’s sense of individuality or independence. The theory holds that people strive to maintain an optimal balance between competing inclusion and distinctiveness needs. We do so by identifying with an in-group and immersing ourselves within a subpart of the ingroup that is perceived as distinct from other subgroups within the larger group. The immersive subgroup, by definition, is a minority of the larger superordinate in-group. Brewer and Pickett (1999) concluded that conditions of high group cohesion and inclusion resulted in low levels of assimilation arousal, but strong desire for differentiation, while


low group cohesion and inclusion triggered higher assimilation needs, with a concomitant reduction in need for differentiation. Insights relevant to the success of minority in-groups in affecting the majority may be deduced from these results. For example, we know from the literature on intergroup relations that most intact, cohesive groups (other than extremist groups, a special case) tend to assume that there exists a reasonable degree of in-group variation in beliefs and norms. Differences of opinion are not particularly surprising to members of cohesive groups and do not motivate punitive responses by the in-group (opinion) majority. In these groups, we expect greater latitude of belief and behavior and thus there is a greater likelihood that in-group (opinion) minorities will emerge. In groups of low cohesion or those under threat, however, a more rigid orthodoxy is expected. Minority positions are perceived as potential threats to group integrity, and minority groups, even minority in-groups, do not fare well. In the boundary condition, which involves extremist groups, this intolerance of in-group deviance is well established (e.g., see Haslam & Turner, 1995; Hogg, 2004, 2007; Hornsey & Hogg, 1999). In such groups, the orthodoxy is so extreme that all aspects of the group’s ethos and belief system are considered sacrosanct. Deviation from even one of the central values is viewed as a threat to the very existence of the group and hence is grounds for excommunication. In such systems, all deviations from orthodoxy are judged fatal. Informative theoretical contrasts arise from consideration of optimal distinctiveness theory in light of theories of in-group positivity and other social identification models. For example, social identity theory maintains that in-group and out-group social comparisons are made to foster positive in-group distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). An example of this twin comparison model is found in the process of out-group derogation, which shines a positive light on the in-group by focusing on comparatively negative attributes of a targeted out-group. Although both the social identity and the optimal distinctiveness approaches underscore the importance of positive social identity needs, Tajfel’s theory appears to appeal to motives to establish in-group positivity through intergroup social comparisons (against an out-group). Conversely, optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that the motivational dimension for social identity is established primarily through a positive distinctiveness process that does not necessitate derogation of out-groups. Further, Brewer’s model proposes that individuals may make the trade-off to abandon positive enhancement and social comparisons if given the opportunity to establish distinctiveness.


This logic is perfectly compatible with the leniency contract interpretation of the process of in-group minority influence (Crano, 2010c; Crano & Alvaro, 1998; Crano & Seyranian, 2008), which holds that majority members’ concern with maintaining the cohesion and wellbeing of the group results in the majority’s lenient treatment of the minority, and this leniency indirectly enhances the minority’s chances for success (Crano & Chen, 1998). Paradoxically, perhaps, a positive value placed on group membership by majority group members, who require the continued integrity of the group, is necessary if the minority is to have a chance of influencing the majority. Of course, other conditions apply if the minority is to prevail. However, these arguments do not apply if the in-group minority’s position threatens the group’s integrity or its continued existence. In that circumstance, the majority is likely to circle the wagons and reject outside influences. However, short of threats to the continued existence of the group, the fundamental precondition for minority influence is that the targets of minority influence, the members of the majority, care about the continued survival of the group. If this condition is not met, then there is little to motivate the majority to bother with the plaints of the minority, and without a viable minority, the majority will stagnate.

MAJORITY AND MINORITY GROUP STATUS AND PERSUASION Relevant to current concerns, a distinguishing feature of social psychology is its emphasis on social influence, which has been a major preoccupation of the field since its inception (Allport, 1935; Asch, 1952, 1955; Atuel, Seyranian, & Crano, 2007; Brewer & Crano, 1994; Crano, 2000; McGuire, 1969, 1986; Prislin & Crano, 2008; Sherif, 1948). In the persuasion literature, an important and relatively recent development is the study of the varying types of influence brought to bear by groups of majority and in-group or out-group minority status (De Vries, De Dreu, Gordijn, & Schuurman, 1996; Moscovici, 1985; Moscovici, MucchiFaina, & Maas, 1994; Nemeth, 1986; Prislin & Christensen, 2002; Prislin, Levine, & Christensen, 2006). According to most of the standard models of persuasion in decision-making interpersonal contexts, majority influence depends on threat and reconnaissance to induce compliance to group norms, although when under external threat, the majority’s position is readily adopted by group members (Alvaro & Crano, 1997). (We distinguish these decision-making interpersonal contexts from those defined by minority–majority relations [e.g., ethnic relations,


international relations]—see Leonardelli and Pickett, this volume). As might be expected on the basis of earlier research (e.g., Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Kelman, 1961), such changes are immediate but ephemeral and are easily undone. Peripheral changes of attitudes brought about by majority pressure are temporally unstable, susceptible to counterpressure, and unlikely to impel behavior (Crano & Prislin, 2008; Moscovici, 1985; Petty & Krosnick, 1995). Minority influence, on the other hand, typically is delayed, but once it occurs, it is more likely to persist in the face of counterpressures and to guide future actions (Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994). An intriguing feature of minority influence is its capacity to induce immediate change on beliefs or attitudes that are related, but not identical, to the target of the minority’s persuasive appeal; that is, beliefs never even addressed in the persuasive message appear susceptible to change pressure when addressed by a minority source. This indirect influence effect is a novel and reasonably consistent outcome of minority-sourced persuasive communications (Crano, 2010a, 2010b; Wood et al., 1994). It is a result that was not anticipated by the majority-centric approach of earlier research (see Moscovici, 1985; Prislin & Crano, 2008), which had not seriously considered the influence of minority groups. Exploring the boundaries of the minority influence phenomenon may tell us much about the cognitive processes that underlie the persuasion process. Not all is rosy, however. As Wood et al. (1994) found in an early review of the minority influence literature, and as has been found in much of the research undertaken since then, minority groups usually have been defined in terms of simple numeric underrepresentation. This rule has been followed as well in much of the research on intergroup relations involving minorities and the majority (but see Gardikiotis, Martin, & Hewstone, 2005; Seyranian, Atuel, & Crano, 2008). As before, this general research approach follows from the early studies of the phenomenon. Many of Moscovici’s minority influence studies, for example, made use of simple numeric differences to operationalize groups of majority or minority status (e.g., Moscovici & Lage, 1976), despite his more complete and comprehensive discussion of the features of the minority (Moscovici, 1976, 1985). A more complex conceptualization of the minority may help advance understanding, for as both commonsense and an analysis of laypersons’ views of minority status suggest, the ecological validity of distinctions based solely on number may be considerably less than ideal (Seyranian et al., 2008). Some researchers (see Reicher, 2004; Sindic & Reicher, 2009) have moved beyond simple numeric conceptualizations of majority and minority status and should be emulated.


In addition to its contribution to understanding identity and intergroup relations, optimal distinctiveness theory has played an important role in social influence research. The capacity of the theory to bridge influence and intergroup relations lies in its central assumption that people hold concurrent and competing desires to be unique and to belong (Brewer, 1991). Distinctiveness has been recognized as fundamental if the minority is to exert influence (Campbell, Tesser, & Farley, 1986; Crano, 2001; Crano & Hannula-Bral, 1994; Moscovici, Lage, & Naffrechoux, 1969). At the same time, the minority must in some way make the case for inclusion in the in-group (Crano, 2010c). Both of these requirements for successful minority influence are consistent with the insights of optimal distinctiveness theory. Persuading the majority that the minority belongs to the larger group, a necessary requisite of successful minority influence, also satisfies inclusiveness motivations as in-group status implies some degree of identification with the majority. At the same time, differentiation needs are met by belonging to a distinct group that relative to the majority is perforce inferior numerically, or in terms of power or status, but likely more visible or salient and probably more cohesive as well. From a theoretical standpoint, then, establishing and maintaining an in-group minority identity, necessary requisites for the minority to prevail, may fulfill two critical optimal distinctiveness criteria as well. Brewer, Manzi, and Shaw (1993) extended optimal distinctiveness theory to the minority context and found that their respondents preferred affiliation with a minority under conditions of high differentiation arousal. In later research, Leonardelli (1998) and Leonardelli and Brewer (2001) demonstrated that group members of minority status experienced greater satisfaction and higher self-esteem than those in the majority. In contrast to majority group members, individuals belonging to a distinct minority group expressed greater group identification and self-stereotyping (Brewer & Weber, 1994; see also Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Major, Sciacchitano, & Crocker 1993; Simon & Hamilton, 1994). These findings help clarify some apparently inconsistent results from the cross-cultural arena, though it must be admitted that crosscultural minority influence research is limited (see Ng & Van Dyne, 2001). Obviously, belonging to a smaller, more socially distinct minority group does not always produce positive affect or acceptance on the part of the majority (Brewer & Weber, 1994). This is particularly so when the minority is of low status, heavily stigmatized, discriminated against, or otherwise socially disadvantaged (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Lücken & Simon, 2005; Meyer, 2003). Under such conditions, minority


status often is synonymous with inferiority, deviance, or weakness (DiPlacido, 1998; Sherif, 1966). How does this picture comport with our emphasis on the minority’s successes? We have argued that minorities can affect majority beliefs and behaviors, but only when they are accepted as legitimate members of the larger group. Minorities attempt to move into this status for many reasons, such as to fulfill belongingness needs and to enable them to move the majority. Minorities that are of low status, heavily stigmatized, or socially disadvantaged are not likely to be accepted by the majority as in-group, irrespective of their desires for inclusion. When the minority is not accepted as legitimate or acceptable for inclusion, its power to influence is forfeit. Satisfying uniqueness needs may motivate individuals to distance themselves from the majority; however, unless the uniqueness is reigned in and the minority is accepted as a legitimate part of the majority, it is destined to remain out-group and thus surrenders its power to influence. This position is consistent with the in-group projection model of Wenzel et al. (2007), which holds that the superordinate group supplies the basis for comparing and differentiating in-group from out-group, or for integrating the (former) out-group into the in-group. Favorable (ingroup) features are projected onto the superordinate group, and the minority will be valued to the extent that it possesses these features. As such, it is essential that minority group members, whether ingroup or out-group, draw attention to their fit with features of the superordinate category and avoid comparisons involving the features that were responsible for their nonmajority status in the first place. Differences between out-group features and those projected onto the prototype (the superordinate group) are the bases for out-group rejection and discrimination.

TRANSITIONS We know from history and considerable laboratory research that in-group minorities can prevail, sometimes even moving into positions of power in the majority. The transition from minority to majority group status has been modeled in a series of creative studies by Prislin and colleagues, and the results of this research are relevant to understanding intergroup relations. Given the chance, most prefer to belong to the majority, and there is more to it than merely acquiring power (Mackie, 1987; Mackie & Hunter, 1999). The majority enjoys the benefits of consensus. It usually is seen as correct. The majority controls resources— material and psychological. Who we are is largely defined by those with whom we are identified. Drawing distinctions between who’s in and


who’s out, between who’s right and who’s wrong, between privileged and disadvantaged—in short, between us and them—motivates us to be counted among those who count. We seek to belong to the majority of our group—even if our group is in the minority—not just because the majority holds the power, but because it is commonly viewed as deserving of its place at the head of the table. So it is not surprising that being part of the majority is sought after, so long as the possibility of retreating into smaller, more distinctive groups when the need arises is allowed. The gain–loss asymmetry model of Prislin, Limbert, and Bauer (2000) has provided interesting insights into the cognitive costs and benefits of these transitions. It happens that the negative reaction resulting from a shift from a majority position to the minority is generally greater than the reaction resulting from a change from minority to majority status—but perhaps only when the transition is not of one’s own volition (i.e., majority status is lost owing to the actions of others and not of the actor’s own volition). Moving from majority to minority status generates an extreme and immediate decline in positivity toward the new in-group, less positive group interaction expectations, and poorer perceptions of group-self similarity. The change from minority to majority status is not associated with intense reactions of this nature (Prislin et al., 2000), and there is some indication that the negative transition is experienced as more intensely detrimental than is the positive transition from minority to majority status, as might be expected on the basis of Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory. This suggests an asymmetrical outcome associated with changes in majority and minority status: “New minorities quickly develop resentment and new majorities are slow to overcome it” (Prislin et al., 2000, p. 395). However, as demonstrated in several studies (Prislin, Brewer, & Wilson, 2002; Prislin & Christensen, 2005; Prislin & Filson, 2009), minority influence can have a profound impact on attitudinal and evaluative perceptions of former majority group members who move into the minority. This change generates an opinion reorientation, creating identification with the (former) minority in-group’s position rather than dissent and intolerance (Prislin et al., 2000, 2002). If, as Moscovici holds, all innovation springs from the actions of the minority, then those who can most effectively move the majority in a new direction may well be those who have transitioned from majority to minority and back to (in-group) majority status. At a minimum, the lessons these individuals learned while at the bottom of the barrel may inform the actions required to move the entire group forward.


CONCLUDING REMARKS This chapter was written to illustrate some points of contact between two exciting features of social psychological research: intergroup relations and minority/majority group influence. These are areas of study in social psychology to which Marilynn Brewer has made major, exciting, and lasting contributions. Although some of her early research placed her in the social influence camp (e.g., see Brewer & Crano, 1968), her interests quickly migrated to the study of intergroup relations, which she has pursued with élan and great purpose over a long and brilliant career. Even so, the points of contact between her early flirtation with social influence and her one true (intellectual) love, intergroup relations, are available for all to see, and some of these intersections were described briefly here. Our listing of these points of contact is far from complete, but it was never meant to be otherwise. Rather, the goal was to illustrate some places at which the two areas of concern intersect and to sketch some of the mutual gains that might be realized if these intersections were taken seriously and their implications developed. The interconnectedness of the two areas is sufficiently powerful that advances in one could have positive implications for development in the other. If this brief discussion contributes to this outcome, it will have fulfilled its purpose of honoring one of the true giants in our field while simultaneously extending her intellectual influence into arenas in which she might not otherwise have wished to play.

REFERENCES Aberson, C. L., Healy, M. R., & Romero, V. L. (2000). In-group bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 157–173. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–884). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1996). Cognitive responses to minority or majority-based communications: Factors that underlie minority influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 105–121. Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counterargumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949–964. Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Prentice Hall. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

238 • William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich Atuel, H., Seyranian, V., & Crano, W. D. (2007). Media representations of majority and minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 561–572. Bennett, M., Barrett, M., Karakozov, R., Kipiani, G., Lyons, E., Pavelnko, V., et al. (2004). Young children’s evaluations of the in-group and of outgroups: A multi-national study. Social Development, 13, 124–141. Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 66, 1072–1087. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1997). Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive and negative outcome allocations between groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 165–176. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-groups bias in the minimal intergroup situation. A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, 150–164. Brewer, M. B. (1999a). In-group love or out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. Brewer, M. B. (1999b). The psychology of prejudice: in-group love or out-group hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. Brewer, M. B. (2001). In-group identification and intergroup conflict: When does in-group love become out-group hate? In L. Jussim & R. D. Ashmore (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). London: Oxford University Press. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup Relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., pp. 554–594). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Brewer, M. B., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East African evidence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1968). Attitude change as a function of discrepancy and source of influence. Journal of Social Psychology, 76, 13–18. Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1994). Social psychology. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishers. Brewer, M. B., Manzi, J. M., & Shaw, J. S. (1993). In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science, 4, 88–92. Brewer, M. B., & Pickett, C. L. (1999). Distinctiveness motives as a source of the social self. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 71–87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. (1978). In-group bias as a function of task characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 393–400. Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus group social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 268–275.


Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717–727. Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about in-groups and out-groups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 118–128. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. Campbell, J. D., Tesser, A., & Farley, P. J. (1986). Conformity and attention to the stimulus: Some temporal and contextual dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 315–324. Cashdan, E. (2001). Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: A cross-cultural study. Current Anthropology, 42, 760–765. Crano, W. D. (1994). Context, comparison, and change: Methodological and theoretical contributions to a theory of minority (and majority) influence. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 17–46). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Crano, W. D. (2000). Milestones in the psychological analysis of social influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 68–80. Crano, W. D. (2001). Social influence, social identity, and in-group leniency. In C. K. W. DeDreu & N. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 122–143). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Crano, W. D. (2010a). Minority influence. In J. M. Levine & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 566–570). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crano, W. D. (2010b). Leniency contract. In J. M. Levine & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 527–530). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crano, W. D. (2010c). Majority and minority influence in attitude formation and change: Context/categorization—leniency contract theory. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes, and consequences (pp. 53–77). New York: Psychology Press. Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). The context/comparison model of social influence: Mechanisms, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 175–202). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crano, W. D., & Chen, X. (1998). The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1437–1450. Crano, W. D., & Hannula-Bral, K. A. (1994). Context/categorization model of social influence: Majority and minority influence in the formation of a novel response norm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 247–276.

240 • William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374. Crano, W. D., & Seyranian, V. (2009). How minorities prevail: The context/ comparison—leniency contract model. Journal of Social Issues [Special Issue: Michelle Marie Grossman Alexander], 65, 335–363. Crocker, J. E., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill. David, B., & Turner, J. C. (2001a). Majority and minority influence: A single process self-categorization analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 91–121). Malden, MA: Blackwell. David, B., & Turner, J. C. (2001b). Self-categorization principles underlying majority and minority influence. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 293–313). New York: Psychology Press. De Vries, N. K., De Dreu, C. K. W., Gordijn, E. H., & Schuurman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence: A dual role interpretation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 145–172). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Diehl, M. (1988). Social identity and minimal groups: The effects of interpersonal and intergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 289–300. Diehl, M. (1989). Justice and discrimination between minimal groups: The limits of equity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227–238. Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 263–292.). Chichester, UK: Wiley. DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: A consequence of heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 138–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dobbs, M., & Crano, W. D. (2001). Out-group accountability in the minimal group paradigm: Implications for aversive discrimination and social identity theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 355–364. Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Druckman, D. (1968). Ethnocentrism in the inter-nation simulation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12, 45–68. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and social self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 371–398. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617–626.


Feshbach, S. (1994). Nationalism, patriotism, and aggression: A clarification of functional differences. In L. R. Huesman (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 275–308). New York: Plenum. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 357–411). Boston MA: McGraw Hill. Gaertner, S. L. (1973). Helping behavior and racial discrimination among liberals and conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 335–341. Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived in-group entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963–980. Gardikiotis, A., Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). Group consensus in social influence: Type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1163–1174. Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259–278). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Gorenflo, D. W., & Crano, W. D. (1989). Judgmental subjectivity/objectivity and locus of choice in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 605–614. Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411. Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1995). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping: III. Extremism as a self-categorical basis for polarized judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 341–371. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Construction and critical advances (pp. 48–70). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Hogg, M. A. (2004). Uncertainty and extremism: Identification with high entitativity groups under conditions of uncertainty. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 401–418). New York: Psychology Press. Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69–126). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Florence, KY: Routledge.

242 • William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543–50. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375–384. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology, 10, 257–274. Kowalski, K. (2003). The emergence of ethnic and racial attitudes in preschoolaged children. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 677–690. Kruglanski, A. W., & Mackie, C. M. (1990). Majority and minority influence: A judgmental process analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 229–261. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Leonardelli, G., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 468–485. Leonardelli, G. J. (1998). The motivational underpinnings of social discrimination: A test of the self-esteem hypothesis. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism. New York: Wiley. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., & Uhles, A. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. Lücken, M., & Simon, B. (2005). Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 396–413. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41–52. Mackie, D. M., & Hunter, S. B. (1999). Majority and minority influence: The interactions of social identity and social cognition mediators. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 332–353). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Major, B., Sciacchitano, A., & Crocker, J. (1993). In-group versus out-group comparisons and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 711–721.


McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136– 314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McGuire, W. J. (1986). The vicissitudes of attitudes and similar representational constructs in twentieth century psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16(2), 89–130. Messick, D. M. & Mackie, D. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45–81. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287–313). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1997). The construction of social norms and standards. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 299–829). New York: Guilford. Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W., & McFarland, C. (1988). Particularistic and universalistic evaluation in the social comparison process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 908–917. Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. New York: Academic Press. Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 347–412). New York: Random House. Moscovici, S., & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149–174. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of the majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380. Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maass, A. (Eds.). (1994). Minority influence. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Mummendey, A. (1995). Positive distinctiveness and social discrimination: An old couple living in divorce. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 671–688. Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 159–171. Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive–negative-asymmetry in social discrimination. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 107–143. Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Grunert., M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S., et al. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125–144.

244 • William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Review, 93, 10–20. Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 788–799. Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Culture and minority influence: Effects of persuasion and originality. In C.K.W. De Dreu & N. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 284–306). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Olson, J. M., Ellis, R. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1983). Validating objective versus subjective judgments: Interest in social comparison and consistency information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 427–436. Olson, M. A., & Kendrick, R. V. (2008). Origins of attitudes. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 111–130). New York: Psychology Press. Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Blanz, M. (1996). Intergroup discrimination in positive and negative outcome allocations: Impact of stimulus valence, relative group status, and relative group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 568–581. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259. Prislin, R., Brewer, M., & Wilson, D. J. (2002). Changing majority and minority positions within a group vs. an aggregate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 640–647. Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2002). Group conversion versus group expansion as modes of change in majority and minority positions: All losses hurt but only some gains gratify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1095–1102. Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2005). The effects of social change within a group on membership preferences: To leave or not to leave. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 595–609. Prislin, R., & Crano, W. D. (2008). Attitudes and attitude change: The fourth peak. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 3–15). New York: Psychology Press. Prislin, R., & Filson, J. (2009). Seeking conversion vs. advocating tolerance in pursuit of social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 811–822. Prislin, R., Levine, J. M., & Christensen, P. N. (2006). When reasons matter: Quality of support affects reactions to increasing and consistent support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 593–601. Prislin, R., Limbert, W. M., & Bauer, E. (2000). From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 385–397.


Rabbie, J. M. (1992). The effects of intragroup cooperation and inter-group competition on in-group cohesion and out-group hostility. In A. H. Harcourt & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals (pp. 175–205). London: Oxford University Press. Rabbie, J. M., Benhoist, F. Oosterbaan, H. & Visser. L. (1974). Differential power and effects of expected competitive and cooperative intergroup interaction on intragroup and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 46–56. Reicher, S. (2004). The psychology of crowd dynamics. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 232–258). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198. Sanders, J. M. (2002). Ethnic boundaries and identity in plural societies. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 327–357. Seyranian, V., Atuel, H., & Crano, W. D. (2008). Dimensions of majority and minority groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 21–37. Sherif, M. (1948). An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper. Sherif, M. (1965). Formation of social norms: The experimental paradigm. In H. Proshansky & B. Seidenberg (Eds.), Basic studies in social psychology. New York: Holt, Reinhart, Winston. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Sherif, M. (1996). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961): Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robber’s Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper. Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Social identity and self-stereotyping: The effects of relative group size and group status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699–711. Sindic, D., & Reicher, S. D. (2009). “Our way of life is worth defending”: Testing a model of attitudes towards superordinate group membership through a study of Scots’ attitudes towards Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 114–129. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459. Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 56, 346–373. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.

246 • William D. Crano and Vanessa Hemovich Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). New York: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. F., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Austin & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 101–114. Turner, J. C. (1978). Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 235–250). London: Academic Press. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Walther, E., & Langer, T. (2008). Attitude formation and change through association: An evaluative conditioning account. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 87–109). New York: Psychology Press. Welbourne, J. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 481–508. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The in-group projection model. European Review of Social Psychololgy, 18, 331–372. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 323–345.

12 INTRAGROUP RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERGROUP COMPARISONS AS TWO SOURCES OF GROUP-BASED COLLECTIVISM Masaki Yuki

My personal understanding of social identity theory started with an episode that occurred in 1997, shortly after I joined Marilynn’s lab as a self-funded postdoc. Fresh from Japan, the “kingdom of collectivism,” I had arrived in Marilynn’s lab with the hope that social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the de facto standard theory of group processes then, would be useful in understanding group behavior in my culture. However, applying social identity theory to the Japanese group behavior I was familiar with did not come as easily as I had first thought. Marilynn largely disagreed nearly every time we engaged in discussion to the point that we were, oftentimes, at a complete loss as to what the other was talking about. As someone who had extensively studied group processes, it was shocking to find out that I really did not have a full understanding of the theory in its entirety. Luckily enough, an experience I had while living in Ohio triggered an understanding not only of social identity theory but also of why the concept seemed foreign to me. Anthony Hermann, my department buddy then, offered me a ticket to see a football match at the famous Ohio Stadium. It was a very chilly Saturday morning when I climbed the stairs to the spectators’ bleachers, and BOOM! There was social identity theory. All around me, people wore apparel with the same color and logo (intragroup similarity), standing in sharp contrast with that

247

248 • Masaki Yuki

of the out-group (Northwestern) in purple (intergroup differentiation). The spectators shouted battle cries for their team to defeat the other (in-group favoritism), and as a whole, moving and shouting in unison, they collectively resembled a giant monster with its own identity (group entitativity). I realized that this was the social identity process I had been taught about. More importantly, I realized that this process was vastly different from the characteristics of “collectivism” that I had studied and observed in East Asia, which were primarily about interpersonal relationships within in-groups. As luck would have it, the distinction between intragroup and intergroup collectivism corresponded well with the distinction between relational and collective modes of social selves that Marilynn and Wendi Gardner had recently proposed (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In this chapter, I describe the qualitative differences in predominant group processes between North American and East Asian cultural contexts. First, I briefly review theory and research on individualism and collectivism, which proposed a simple distinction between cultures characterized by independence and autonomy versus interdependence and group centeredness, and the “crisis” that the theory has faced. Second, I describe my attempt to tackle this problem through a new theory on the qualitative differences in the types of group processes common in North America and East Asia: intergroup comparison orientation versus intragroup relationship orientation. After reviewing empirical evidence in support of my theory, I finally present some relatively new data that suggest that these different kinds of collectivism may emerge under different kinds of socioecological contexts, such as through variations in the degree of relational mobility (Yuki et al., 2007). Individualism and Collectivism Theorists in cross-cultural psychology have identified a number of dimensions along which the many cultures of the world might be distinguished (e.g., Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994). Among these differences, the dimension that has received the greatest amount of attention by far is the distinction between individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995). While both collectivism and individualism are multidimensional constructs, theorists largely agree that the principal distinction between the two resides in differences in the degree of in-group identity and loyalty (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Yamaguchi, 1994). The core theme of individualism is the conception of individuals as autonomous beings who are separate from groups, while the central theme of collectivism is the conception of individuals as parts of groups or collectives.

Intragroup Relationships and Intergroup Comparisons • 249

Individualists are purported to show less in-group loyalty, giving priority to personal goals over the goals of collectives. In contrast, collectivists either make no distinction between personal and collective goals or, if they do so, they subordinate their personal goals to collective goals. At the extreme ends of the poles representing individualism and collectivism, North America (such as the United States and Canada) and East Asia (such as Japan, China, and Korea) have been treated, respectively, as prototypic representatives of individualistic and collectivist cultures. As such, most empirical investigations into these constructs have compared samples from these two geographical areas. Numerous attempts have been made to uncover psychological and behavioral differences in phenomena such as self-concepts, emotions, social judgment, communication styles, sense of justice, and so on, and these differences have frequently been interpreted as manifestations of the varying levels of individualism and collectivism between North American and East Asian societies (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Smith & Bond, 1998). However, after rigorous investigation conducted over 20 years, a stunning fact was uncovered: North Americans are actually no less collectivistic than are East Asians. One groundbreaking meta-analytic paper by Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) showed that the majority of research indicated that collectivism among North Americans was actually higher than that of Japanese, while no difference was found between Americans and Koreans, and American collectivism was sometimes higher than Chinese collectivism, depending on the scale content used in the studies. There have been various reactions to these striking findings. Some scholars concluded that cross-cultural differences in collectivism between North Americans and East Asians did not exist, or, at least, were not empirically warranted (Matsumoto, 1999; Takano & Osaka, 1999). Other researchers who were in favor of the theory maintained that the reviewed findings were not reliable since they primarily relied on Likert scales. These researchers argued that because Likert scales are vulnerable to various biases such as differences in response sets (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995) and the reference group used when making judgments (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002), the results from these studies could not be trusted. There is, nonetheless, another possibility that was completely overlooked: it is possible that although all humans, as a social species, create and utilize social groups, the kind of groups they identify themselves with and their motivations in these groups may vary, depending on the culture in which they reside. In other words, there can be multiple kinds

250 • Masaki Yuki

of collectivism, in which group identification and behaviors differ qualitatively rather than quantitatively between cultures. In the following section, I briefly describe my classification of two kinds of collectivism, or group orientation (using a more politically neutral term), predominant in North American and East Asian cultures (Yuki, 2003; see also, Brewer & Yuki, 2007). Social Identity Theory and the North American Intergroup Comparison Orientation In Western social psychology, social identity theory, along with selfcategorization theory, has been accepted as the single comprehensive theory of group behavior and cognitive processes underlying an array of intergroup and group phenomena (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). The basic tenet of these theories is that group behaviors derive from cognitive representations of the self in terms of its membership in a shared social category in which there is effectively no psychological separation between the self and the group as a whole. This phenomenon is known as the depersonalization of self-representation. When social identity is made salient, individuals “come to perceive themselves more as the interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique personalities defined by their individual differences from others” (Turner et al., 1987, p. 50). Thus, the cognitive representation of the self shifts from the personal self to the collective self (Hogg and Abrams, 1988). This form of depersonalization occurs in a comparative context between in-groups and out-groups. That is, the categorization of the self as a group member is more likely to occur insofar as the perceived differences between in-group members are less than the perceived differences between in-group and out-group members. Accordingly, social identity theory posits that in-groups cannot be defined in isolation from out-groups, but rather that they gain their definition from comparisons and contrasts to out-groups. Because the self is defined at the level of the in-group, value is derived from maximizing positive distinctiveness between in-groups and out-groups. Thus, intergroup status differentials and one’s group having higher status are critical. In this comparative context, features shared by in-group members that distinguish them from out-group members give rise to a group “prototype.” Perceptions of the self and other in-group members are then assimilated to this in-group prototype. In-group members are perceived as more similar to one another, and the in-group as a whole is perceived to be more homogeneous (Hogg & Turner, 1987). Some recent developments of social identity theory have focused on group member differences


in prototypicality, with relative prototypicality being associated with differential influence and marginalization within the group (Hogg, 2001). Nevertheless, social identity implies a depersonalized perception of the in-group, by viewing group members either as interchangeable or as differing in terms of their prototype-based position in the group. In a similar manner, cultural psychologists used social identity theory to interpret behaviors among people in collectivist societies. Triandis, McCusker, and Hui (1990), for instance, maintained that the self in collectivist cultures is construed as an “appendage of the in-group” (p. 1008) and, based on this understanding, predicted that perceived in-group homogeneity would be higher in collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures. These applications, however, may overlook some critical differences between social identity theory and the pattern of collectivism, especially in East Asia.

EAST ASIAN COLLECTIVISM AS INTRAGROUP RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION Parallel to the constructs of individualism and collectivism, social identity theory is often thought of as a continuum with personal (individuated) identity on one end, and social (collective) identity at the other. The shift between personal and social identities is presumed to lay in universal cognitive processes associated with social categorization and category salience. Against this view of a single continuum, however, Brewer and Gardner (1996) suggested that there may be three qualitatively different views of the “social self ”: individual, relational, and collective, each being a distinct self-representation with different structural properties, basis for self-evaluation, and motivational concerns (see also Chen, Zhao, & Lee, this volume; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999; Kashima & Hardie, 2000). The individual self is the representation of self as a unique person, differentiated from other individuals, while the relational self is defined in terms of connections and role relationships with significant others (Cross & Madson, 1997; Gilligan, 1982). The relational self is personalized and incorporates dyadic relationships between the self, specific close others, and networks of such interpersonal connections. On the contrary, the collective self is consistent with the social identity of self-categorization theory (SCT), defined in terms of prototypical properties shared among members of a common in-group (Brewer, 1991; Turner et al., 1987). It consists of depersonalized connections with others by virtue of common membership in a symbolic group. Unlike relational identities, collective identities do not require interpersonal relationship knowledge or coordination but instead rely on shared symbols and cognitive representations of the group as a unit.

252 • Masaki Yuki

Drawing on Brewer and Gardener’s (1996) distinction between relational and collective social selves, I have proposed that the predominant characteristics of group cognition and behavior may differ across cultural contexts (Yuki, 2003). According to this framework, processes consistent with social identity theory and self-categorization theory are most applicable to Western intergroup situations emphasizing categorical and in-group–out-group distinctions. In contrast, East Asian groups may be a predominantly intragroup and relationship-based phenomenon, with its collectivism largely promoting cooperation and relational harmony maintenance with specific in-group others. Relational Self-Representation Rather Than Collective Self The term collectivism has been sometimes used interchangeably with Brewer and Gardner’s collective self (1996) and others. However, if one investigates literature with more sociological, anthropological, and indigenous psychological perspectives, the East Asian self appears to specifically emphasize its relational aspect (e.g., Choi, Kim, & Choi, 1993; Hamaguchi, 1977; Lebra, 1976), the most well-known example being the interdependent self proposed by Markus and Kitayama (1991). According to their view, Asian cultures “are organized according to meanings and practices that promote the fundamental connectedness among individuals within a significant relationship (e.g., family, workplace, and classroom)” (Kitayama et al., p. 1247). Furthermore, “the self is made meaningful primarily in reference to those social relations of which the self is a participating part” (p. 1247). As implicated in the Confucian paradigm, individuals see themselves situated symbolically in the web of a relational network through which they define themselves (King & Bond, 1985). Although this idea is often misunderstood, maintaining an “interdependent” self is different not only from the self represented at the category level (Turner et al., 1987), but also from the self extended to include significant others (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). People with an interdependent self believe that individuals are mutually distinct. They are, nonetheless, understood as connected with each other via stable and visible relationships (Hamaguchi, 1977; Ho & Chiu, 1994). It is known that East Asians are particularly concerned with maintaining intragroup cooperation and harmony, and try to inhibit potential conflict among the members (e.g., Ho & Chiu 1994; Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997; Leung & Bond, 1984; Smith & Bond, 1998; Yamagishi, Jin, & Miller, 1998). This would not be necessary if their selves were merged with each other.


In-Group Representation as a Network Rather Than as a Depersonalized Entity While relational self is prevalent among East Asians, they do not downplay the in-group as a meaningful social unit. As predicted by social identity theory, East Asians strongly impose boundaries between in-groups and out-groups (Gudykunst, 1988). But instead of depersonalized entities, they perceive their in-groups as complex networks of interrelated individual members (Choi et al., 1993; Hamaguchi, 1977; Ho, 1993; Lebra, 1976; Nakane, 1970). In other words, a distinction is made between those who are and who are not personally related. The different conceptualizations of in-groups by Westerners and East Asians correspond to two different modes of group entitativity. The term entitativity denotes the degree to which a social collective is viewed as an entity unto itself (Campbell, 1958). The depersonalized and intergroup view of in-group, proposed to be predominant among Westerners, should correspond to similarity-based or homogeneity-based entitativity (Brewer & Harasty, 1996). On the contrary, the network and interpersonal view of in-group, which I propose to be prevalent among East Asians, should correspond to the organizational and structural view of group entitativity (Hamilton, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998; see also Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994, for a similar distinction between common-identity and common-bond groups). If East Asian collectivists conceive of groups as webs of social networks rather than as depersonalized entities, then they should be concerned about maintaining a high level of knowledge about the in-group’s complex relational structure, both horizontally and vertically, and about locating themselves at some specific point within this structure. For instance, it is pointed out that East Asians are particularly attentive to prescribed status differences between in-group members (Nakane, 1970). To act appropriately, individuals should begin social interactions by assessing the role relationship between oneself and others (Hwang, 1999). Summary The key argument proposed here is that an alternative model is required to describe East Asian collectivism—a model that incorporates a set of cognitive representations of self and in-group that are not depicted by social identity theory. In sum, social identity theory, which focuses primarily on intergroup relations, depicts groups as entities consisting of members whose identities are perceptually undifferentiated and interchangeable, or defined in terms of their relative typicality. In contrast, East Asians’ group behaviors derive from an intragroup focus.

254 • Masaki Yuki

The in-group is a structured network of personalized but interconnected individuals whose exact location within the network is clear. In the next section, I review some empirical evidence for this theory, provided by my colleagues and myself, as well as by others.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE In-Group Identities The most direct method to investigate different cultures’ social identities is to assess their spontaneous self-descriptions. It is commonly assumed that self-concepts of people in individualist cultures primarily possess idiocentric traits and attributes, whereas collectivists’ selfconcepts incorporate more social references, including allocentric, relational constructs and group memberships (Triandis, 1989). But empirical data have provided mixed support for this claim: while some studies showed that collectivists generate a larger proportion of social identity references (e.g., Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002; Triandis et al., 1990), other studies found that U.S. respondents use an equal, or sometimes greater, proportion of social descriptors than respondents from Japan, China, or Korea (e.g., Bond & Cheung, 1983; Rhee, Uleman, Lee, & Roman, 1995). Incorporating the distinction between relationship- and categorybased social identities can help make sense of some otherwise anomalous findings in the literature. When looking closely at spontaneously generated social identity descriptions in different cultures, a distinct pattern emerges: while collectivist participants in collectivist cultures generally refer more to social relationships and role identities, those in individualistic cultures are more likely to refer to social group or social category memberships (e.g., Watkins et al., 1998; see also, Brewer & Chen, 2007, for a consistent conclusion). In order to more directly test for cultural differences in the meaning of social identities that implicate the in-group, I compared the strength of predictors of in-group identity and loyalty in Japan and the United States (Yuki, 2003). In this study, I asked American and Japanese university students to report their perceptions of two kinds of in-groups differing in size—their nation and a small social group to which they belonged (such as a student club or activity group). The results showed that, for Japanese, in-group identification and loyalty were solely determined by relational factors, such as the sense of interconnectedness between the self and other group members, and the knowledge about individual differences and relationships among group members. For Americans, however, identity and loyalty were associated not only with


relational but also with categorical factors, such as perceptions of homogeneity within the group and status of their group relative to out-groups. Spontaneous Memory of Group Information The above studies yielded results consistent with the idea that motivations underlying group orientations differ between East Asians and North Americans. However, these conclusions are weakened by a reliance on Likert scales, which can make cross-cultural comparisons problematic. It is thus crucial to examine the hypothesized cultural differences through other methods, such as by assessing online responses, or mental responses spontaneously produced as people behave in actual social settings (Kitayama, 2002). My colleagues and I recently assessed North Americans’ and East Asians’ spontaneous attention to intergroup status differences and intragroup relationships (Takemura, Yuki, & Ohtsubo, 2010). As predicted, the results of an experiment showed that compared with Japanese participants, memory performance among U.S. participants was biased toward intergroup status difference information over intragroup relationship information. Americans, who are more likely to hold a collective and depersonalized conceptualization of the self within the in-group context, are more receptive to information pertaining to status differences between groups than are Japanese, whose relational social identity is more focused on the connections of distinct individuals within the group. Intragroup Behaviors: Trust Trust is the expectation of benevolent treatment from others in uncertain or risky situations. It is typically called for in situations where another person has the potential to gain at one’s expense but can choose not to do so (Foddy, Platow, & Yamagishi, 2009). Although it is generally difficult to establish trust in a person whom one does not know personally, such impersonal trust is essential for the creation and maintenance of many forms of economic exchange, organizations, and social and political institutions (e.g., Kramer, 1999; Ostrom, 1998; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). One solution to this problem is to rely on social distance: “trust neighbors, but not outsiders” (Macy & Skvoretz, 1998, p. 651). In contrast to the popular view, evidence suggests that this in-group bias in trust is actually larger for people from individualist cultures than for those from collectivist cultures, where in-group–out-group distinction is made on a categorical basis (Buchan, Croson, & Dawes, 2002; Buchan, Johnson, & Croson, 2006; Yamagishi, Makimura, Foddy, Matsuda, Kiyonari, & Platow, 2005).

256 • Masaki Yuki

This mystery can be solved if one thinks about two distinct bases for trust in a stranger. First, shared category membership (a common in-group) can be a basis for depersonalized trust (Brewer, 1981). When a shared social categorization is made salient, individuals, in line with social identity theory, are more likely to trust such category in-group members to allocate resources fairly than selfishly (Foddy et al., 2009), to cooperate in order to conserve resources of the in-group (e.g., Brewer & Kramer, 1986), and to contribute to the public good without knowing whether other in-group members are also contributing their shares (Wit & Kerr, 2002). Second, individuals can trust others if they know (or believe) that they are directly or indirectly connected to each other through mutual friendships or acquaintances (Coleman, 1990). A shared network of interpersonal relationships provides a mechanism for extending personalized trust to unknown others who are part of the social network. If we incorporate the above discussion on the qualitative differences in group processes across cultures, it is possible that the former, the category-based version of trust, may be more predominant in the West, whereas the latter, the interpersonal-connection-based version, may be more predominant in East Asia. My colleagues and I conducted a couple of experimental studies to test this idea, and obtained support (Yuki, Maddux, Brewer, & Takemura, 2005). Across both studies, Americans tended to trust strangers who shared the same categorical memberships more than those who did not, while the presence of an acquaintance in the target persons’ groups, or the estimated likelihood of a mutual acquaintance, had no effect on levels of trust. In contrast, for Japanese participants, trust depended more on the likelihood that targets shared direct or indirect relationship links. In particular, the presence of a potential cross-group relationship had a strong effect on out-group trust for Japanese. This evidence led us to conclude that, in line with the present theory, in contrast to a mechanism of trust and cooperation based on depersonalized shared group memberships in the West, East Asian trust is dependent on interpersonal connections and reciprocal obligations. Intergroup Discrimination Discrimination, or the preferential treatment of in-group over outgroups, is ubiquitous (Sumner, 1906). However, the specific targets of and reasons for discrimination may vary greatly between cultures. Evidence shows that, in minimal group settings where participants are divided into different groups based on arbitrary criteria, such as perceptual tendencies or preferences for abstract paintings, Westerners more readily engage in discriminative behaviors than people in other parts


of the world (e.g., Buchan, Croson, & Johnson, 2003; Wetherell, 1982). Moreover, Western participants are found to discriminate against out-groups even when, in minimal group experiments, the chance of one’s in-group favoritism being reciprocated by other group members is explicitly eliminated (e.g., Perreault & Bourhis, 1998; Platow, McClintock, & Liebrand, 1990). According to social identity theory, such in-group favoritism is based on the motivation for positive intergroup distinctiveness, by benefitting the in-group as a whole. On the contrary, studies have shown that Japanese stop favoring in-group over out-group members when reciprocal interdependence with in-group members has been eliminated (Jin, Yamagishi, & Kiyonari, 1996; Karp, Jin, Yamagishi, & Shinotsuka, 1993). In contrast to the principle of positive intergroup distinctiveness governing intergroup behaviors, East Asian intergroup behavior can be understood as a strategy that maximize one’s own personal interest by maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with fellow in-group members (Yamagishi, Jin, & Kiyonari, 1999).

SOCIOECOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERGROUP AND INTRAGROUP ORIENTATIONS Overall, the above evidence supports my original claim that the kinds, not the levels, of collectivism are different between North America and East Asia. More specifically, North Americans tend to define groups in terms of shared features among group members, to have a depersonalized view of the self as a prototypical exemplar of the in-group, and to be motivated to gain higher intergroup status. On the contrary, East Asians conceptualize groups in terms of shared interpersonal networks among group members, perceive the self as a distinctive but constitutive part of the network, and are motivated to maintain harmonious and reciprocal relationships between the members (Yuki, 2003). There is, however, one remaining issue that is yet to be answered. From where do these differences in group processes originate? In this final section, I attempt to answer this question from the newly arisen socioecological perspective (e.g., Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; Oishi & Graham, 2010; Yuki et al., 2007). The main goal of the socioecological perspective is to delineate how the mind and behavior of individuals are related to the natural and social habitats that surround them, such as economic, political, educational, societal, and organizational reward systems, as well as more intermediate structures such as the characteristics of cities, towns and neighborhoods, housing, and family and kin relationships. Although

258 • Masaki Yuki

this approach may sound akin to that of ecological biologists who primarily study animals’ behaviors in relation to their natural habitats, the important distinction is that it also deals with the recursive process in which the human mind and behavior affect and create social habitats (see Oishi & Graham, 2010, for an extensive review of this approach). One socioecological factor that has recently received extensive focus is the level of interpersonal or intergroup mobility (e.g., Adams, Anderson, & Adonu, 2004; Oishi, Lun, & Sherman, 2007; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994; Yuki et al., 2007). Relational mobility, defined as the amount of opportunities people in a given society or social context have to select interactional partners or groups when necessary (Yuki et al., 2007), as well as other factors that may be closely tied to relational mobility, has proven useful in explaining various North American and East Asian differences, such as those in the level of trust in strangers (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994), determinants of subjective well-being (Sato, Yuki, Takemura, Schug, & Oishi, 2008), self-enhancement (Falk, Heine, Takemura, & Yuki, 2009), pursuit of uniqueness (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008), and self-disclosure (Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010). Different levels of relational mobility also may bring about differences in group processes. In societies low in relational mobility, group membership is generally ascribed and predetermined. People cannot escape from their groups even if they find that their own attitudes, goals, and so on are not fully compatible with those of their fellow group members. It is, thus, critically important to maintain good relationships with one’s in-group members, by recognizing and accommodating individual differences in attitudes, goals, and so on within the group (Adams et al., 2004). Moreover, to be successful, one must also navigate friction between other in-group members, requiring great attention to the in-group’s complex relational networks. By contrast, individuals in high relational mobility societies can more freely choose in-groups, and to the extent that this is true, they should attempt to find and join groups that have higher rather than lower status, because the membership in the former will generally provide them with larger resources. Thus, people should constantly monitor intergroup status differences and attempt to associate with groups of higher status. Consistent with this idea, people in more residentially mobile societies, as well as individuals with larger personal residential mobility, generally change their in-group identity more opportunistically, depending on the success or failure of the in-group and its members, than those who are in less residentially mobile societies and those who move less (Oishi, Ishii, & Lun, 2009).


Additionally, in societies high in relational mobility, individuals are able to form groups around similarities and common interests, which facilitate coordinated action and collective goal pursuit. Consistent with this, my colleagues and I have data suggesting that the reason why friends in the United States are more similar with each other than those in Japan is because of higher relational mobility in the former society. Although the preference for similar to dissimilar other is common to both countries, the opportunities to find and make friends with similar others are fewer in Japan, a society low in relational mobility (Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009). While it seems that, as above, relational mobility is useful in explaining the origins of cross-cultural differences in group processes, there are some further remaining issues surrounding the concept. First, what is the relationship between the levels of relational mobility, and the types of social selves, such as the relational and collective self? The picture seems complicated because there is considerable confusion regarding the definition of social selves in the literature. Take, for example, the relational self. As discussed earlier, there are at least two distinct types of relational self. One type is that in which one’s self “overlaps” with that of another person, characterized by terms such as “union” and “attachment” (e.g., Aron et al., 1991). Another type, as represented in our intragroup relationship model, represents the self as connected with others in a tight and ascribed social network. Existing literature suggests that the former type of relational self might be more prevalent in societies that are found to be high in relational mobility. For instance, findings indicate that felt closeness between friends is higher for North Americans than for people in other parts of the world, such as West Africa (Adams et al., 2004) and East Asia (Schug et al., 2010). The latter type, however, is likely more prevalent in societies low in relational mobility, where the connections between individuals are stable, solid, and readily apparent. Second, and as a more fundamental question, why are there differences in relational mobility between societies? While it is certainly impossible to single out one specific historical factor that is solely responsible for what is today, previous work in institutional economics suggests one possible contributing factor. Work by Greif (2006), a historical institutional economist, suggests that systems that societies use to reduce uncertainty in exchange relationships can have a profound impact on the ability for individuals to form new exchange relationships. His research examined two groups of medieval traders, the Maghribi and the Genoese. Both groups faced the same basic problem of dealing with uncertainty in economic exchanges, but they took completely different

260 • Masaki Yuki

approaches to address the problem. The Maghribi formed a closed system of trading, where one could only trade with other members of the same closed society. By taking this “collectivistic” solution, they could be assured that no one would behave in an untrustworthy manner as those who did so would be promptly excluded from the closed network. The Genoese traders, on the other hand, approached this problem by investing in a centralized legal system that relied on third parties such as courts for contract enforcement, enabling those who broke contract to be subject to litigation. Such centralized legal systems, such as police and courts of law, greatly reduce the costs associated with seeking out new exchange relationships and likely lead to the increase in mobility of trading relationships in many Western societies (Greif, 2006). It is possible that implementation of such a system made it possible for North American societies to prosper by enabling immigrants from various countries around the world and who were otherwise strangers to communicate and interact with each other with reduced social uncertainty. In any case, the socioecological approach provides an explanation for why individualism in North America is associated with depersonalized, symbolic collective identities by suggesting ways in which ecological factors (e.g., the ability to choose in-groups with high status or similar characteristics) might bring about the psychological tendencies and behavioral consequences described by social identity theory, such as intergroup comparison and intragroup similarity. It is expected that an application of the socioecological perspective will enrich our understanding of the more fundamental causation underlying different patterns of group behaviors and thus make it a genuinely social psychology of group processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Jason Kisling and Joanna Schug, as well as the coeditors Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, and Robert Livingston, for their valuable input on earlier versions of this chapter.

REFERENCES Adams, G., Anderson, S. L., & Adonu, J. K. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 321–339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.


Bond, M. H., & Cheung, T. (1983). College students’ spontaneous self-concept: The effect of culture among respondents in Hong Kong, Japan, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 186–200. Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. B. Brewer & B. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences (pp. 345–360). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. -R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 347–370). New York: Guilford Press. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. D. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549. Brewer, M. B., & Yuki, M. (2007). Culture and social identity. In S. Kitayama & D.Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 307–322). New York: Guilford Press. Buchan, N. R., Croson, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers: A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 168–206. Buchan, N. R., Johnson, E., & Croson, R. (2006). Let’s get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 373–398. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. Chen, C., Lee, S. -y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and crosscultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6, 170–175. The Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164. Choi, S. C., Kim, U., & Choi, S. H. (1993). Indigenous analysis of collective representations: A Korean perspective. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 193–210). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

262 • Masaki Yuki Cross, S. E., & Madison, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. Falk, C., Heine, S., Yuki, M., & Takemura, K. (2009). Why do Westerners selfenhance more than East Asians? European Journal of Personality, 23, 183–203. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 915–981). New York: McGraw-Hill. Foddy, M., Platow, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20, 419–422. Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Culture and intergroup processes. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 165–181). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hamaguchi, E. (1977). “Nihon rashisa” no saihakken [The rediscovery of “Japaneseness”]. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The referencegroup effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918. Ho, D. F. Y. (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 240–259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Ho, D. Y. F., & Chiu, C. Y. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An application in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 137–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in workrelated values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.


Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340. Hwang, K. K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: Two types of social identification in Confucianism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 163–183. Jin, N., Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. (1996). Bilateral dependency and the minimal group paradigm (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 67, 77–85. Karp, D. R., Jin, N., Yamagishi, T., & Shinotsuka, H. (1993). Raising the minimum in the minimal group paradigm. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 231–240. Kashima, E., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 19–48. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. King, A. Y. C., & Bond, M. H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view. In W. T. Tseng & D. Wu (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29–46). New York: Academic Press. Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes—Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 89–96. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038–1051. Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793–804. Macy, M. W., & Skvoretz, J. (1998). The evolution of trust and cooperation between strangers: A computational model. American Sociological Review, 63, 638–660. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289–310. Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). The culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Denver, CO: Westview Press.

264 • Masaki Yuki Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 356–377. Oishi, S., Ishii, K., & Lun, J. (2009). Residential mobility and conditionality of group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 913–919. Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G. D. (2007). Residential mobility, self-concept, and positive affect in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 131–141. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92, 1–22. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and metaanalyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. (1998). Social identification, interdependence and discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 49–66. Platow, M., McClintock, C., & Liebrand, W. (1990). Predicting intergroup fairness and in-group bias in the minimal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 221–239. Prentice, D., Miller, D., & Lightdale, J. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493. Rhee, E., Uleman, J., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. (1995). Spontaneous selfdescriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 142–152. Ross, M., Xun, W., & Wilson, A. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050. Sato, K., Yuki, M., Takemura, K., Schug, J., & Oishi, S. (2008). The “openness” of society determines the relationship between self-esteem and subjective well-being (1): A cross-societal comparison. A poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, NM. Schug, J., Yuki, M., Horikawa, H., & Takemura, K. (2009). Similarity attraction and actually selecting similar others: How cross-societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal similarity in Japan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 95–103. Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21, 1471–1478. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.


Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Takano, Y., & Osaka, E. (1999). An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan and the U.S. on individualism/collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 311–341. Takemura, K., Yuki, M., & Ohtsubo, Y. (2010). Attending inside or outside: A Japan-U.S. comparison of spontaneous memory of group information. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 303–307. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Watkins, D., Adair, J., Akande, A., Gerong, A., McInerney, D., Sunar, D. et al. (1998). Individualism-collectivism, gender and the self-concept: A nine culture investigation. Psychologia, 41, 259–271. Wetherell, M. (1982). Cross-cultural studies of minimal groups: Implications for the social identity theory of intergroup relations. Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 207–240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wit, A. P., & Kerr, N. L. (2002). Me versus just us versus us all: Categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 616–637. Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19, 579–584. Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., & Kiyonari, T. (1999). Bounded generalized reciprocity: In-group boasting and in-group favoritism. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 161–197. Yamagishi, T., Jin, N., & Miller, A. (1998). Collectivism and in-group bias. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 315–328. Yamagishi, T., Makimura, Y., Foddy, M., Matsuda, M., Kiyonari, T., & Platow, M. J. (2005). Comparisons of Australians and Japanese on group-based cooperation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 173–190. Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166.

266 • Masaki Yuki Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175–188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166–183. Yuki, M., Maddux, W. W., Brewer, M. B., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48–62. Yuki, M., Schug, J., Horikawa, H., Takemura, K., Sato, K., Yokota, K. et al. (2007). Development of a scale to measure perceptions of relational mobility in society (CERSS Working Paper 75). Sapporo, Japan: Hokkaido University, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences.

III Applications and Implications

13 HOW LEADERS TRANSFORM FOLLOWERS Organizational Identity as a Mediator of Follower Attitudes in Three Service Organizations Sherry K. Schneider, Winette M. George, Sean Carroll, and Eric Middleton

Since Marilynn Brewer’s seminal experimental work on social identity in social dilemmas (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Kramer & Brewer, 1984), social identity theorists have hypothesized that individuals make difficult decisions on behalf of the group dependent on the salience of group membership in the situation (Brewer & Schneider, 1990, 1999). Since then, social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) has been exported from the lab to organizational settings with great success (e.g., Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000; van Knippenberg, 2000). A search of APA Psynet from 1984 to March 2010 produced 225 papers with the search term “organizational identity” and 529 more using SIT and “organization” in the subject search line. Tajfel’s (1978) original conception of social identity included both cognitive and emotional aspects. Working from Tajfel’s (1978) definition, Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk (1999) identified three separate components of social identity: (1) a derivation of self-concept, in part, from the groups to which one belongs (social categorization), (2) an emotional attachment to one’s group (affective commitment), and (3) an evaluative component in which one favors one’s own group over others (group self-esteem). Ellemers et al. found that questions measuring all three aspects of social identity could be combined to form a reliable whole. 269

270 • Sherry K. Schneider, Winette M. George, Sean Carroll

Yet, these three components were identified as separate dimensions in a principal components analysis (PCA). They were also differentially affected by group characteristics such as size and status. Ultimately, only group commitment mediated the effects of group characteristics on in-group favoritism. It is now accepted that the way in which individuals define themselves in terms of their relationships to organizations has implications for organizational outcomes (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Harris & Cameron, 2005; Haslam & Platow, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2000; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004, 2005). It is clear that organizational identity had “positive and sustainable” effects (Haslam et al., 2000, p. 319) such as enhanced organizational commitment (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006), work performance (van Knippenberg, 2000), and reduced turnover intentions (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998). According to van Knippenberg (2000), when the groups’ interests are aimed at work performance, identification with that group will motivate the individuals toward higher work performance. Van Knippenberg differentiates between task performance and contextual performance. Task performance involves role requirements, and contextual performance refers to such extra-role activities that may benefit the performance of the work unit as a whole, such as those consistent with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). OCB is an extra-role behavior that benefits the organization but is not required for the job (Bateman & Organ, 1983). The effects of social identity are more likely to be apparent on contextual performance rather than task performance (van Knippenberg, 2000), indicating a potential relationship between social identity and individuals’ OCB (e.g., Christ, van Dick, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2003). In the last few years, research on SIT in organizations has become more process oriented (e.g., van Knippenberg et al., 2005). SIT researchers hypothesize that social identity may mediate the relationship between leadership and positive organizational behavior outcomes (Haslam & Platow, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2005; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Van Knippenberg’s (2000) “social identity model of work motivation and performance” (p. 362) posits that social identity salience motivates behavior on behalf of the collective because employees embrace collective goals and interests as their own. In an experimental study of cooperation in social dilemmas in keeping with the work by Brewer and Kramer (1984) and Kramer and Brewer (1986), de Cremer, van Knippenberg, van Dijk, and van Leeuwen (2008) showed limited support for this hypothesis.

How Leaders Transform Followers • 271

Congruent with van Knippenberg’s (2000) model, transformational leaders are also thought to motivate by “transforming” employees’ goals to those of the organization (Berson & Avolio, 2004). Yet, there is little empirical research that suggests that the effects of transformational leadership on followers are mediated by social identity. A practical and theoretical question then becomes, do transformational leaders positively affect followers’ outcomes such as increased satisfaction, commitment, and OCB by encouraging them to identify with the organization? In this chapter, we share two small field studies that suggest that the effects of transformational leadership are mediated, at least partially, by organizational identity. First, we discuss the relevant organizational identity and transformational leadership literatures in more detail. Second, we discuss studies of voluntary service club presidents (e.g., Lions Club, Rotary International) and grocery store and fast-food managers, both of which support the mediation model (Figure 13.1).

Predictor: Follower perceptions of transformational leadership

b

Follower outcomes: Satisfaction OCB commitment intentions to stay

Direct pathway Predictor: Follower perceptions of transformational leadership

a

Follower outcomes: Satisfaction OCB commitment intentions to stay Mediator: Organizational identity

c

Mediated pathway Figure 13.1 General mediation model for Studies 1 and 2. Path (a) predictor-mediator; path (b) predictor-outcome; path (c) mediator-outcome. The effects of perceived transformational leadership on follower perceptions as mediated by organizational identity. (Based on Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.)


ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY There are two literatures that have evolved separately that imply that organizational identity should mediate the effects of leadership behavior on followers. Some theorists (e.g., Haslam & Platow, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg et al., 2004, 2005) approach leadership from a traditional SIT perspective: they believe that group membership shapes one’s perceptions of self and others’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2004). According to Hogg and van Knippenberg, people are more likely to be influenced by prototypical group members than nonprototypical members. A prototypical group member embodies the characteristics that members believe to be important to group membership. Leader effectiveness is linked to how strongly the followers identify with the group and how well the leader fits the group characteristics (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2004). Followers who strongly identify with the group will also accept the organization’s attitudes, values, and goals as their own (de Cremer et al., 2008) and then act accordingly by engaging in behaviors that are in the best interests of the organization (e.g., organizational citizenship, productivity). Social cognitive psychologists such as Lord (e.g., Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999) studied the mediating effects of identity from a different perspective (cf. leadership categorization theory; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). Lord et al. first studied the cognitive content of the leadership prototype and its subsequent effects on followers’ behavior. In general, people have preconceived prototypes of how leaders should behave in various situations (e.g., honest and trustworthy). These prototypes are activated in followers when a person is categorized as a leader, thus generating expectations about the leader’s attributes and behaviors (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003). Followers then perceive a person who fits the leader prototype as an effective leader (Haslam, 2004). Lord et al. (1999) contend that the follower prototypes of leaders affect perceptions of leader behavior that subsequently influence how effective a leader may become. In these terms, leadership is interpreted as a product of individual cognitive processes rather than a psychological process of group membership (Hogg & van Knippenberg). Although the study of the impact of organizational identity on leader effectiveness (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg, 2000; van Knippenberg et al., 2004, 2005) and the cognitive impact of leadership prototype on self-concept (Lord & Brown, 2001; Lord et al., 1999) have evolved as two separate literatures, the findings of these studies are surprisingly congruent. Leadership influence may be dependent on the ability to influence subordinate identity (Lord & Brown).


Lord et al. report that subordinate identity (as a component of selfconcept) affects many psychological processes and is susceptible to leader influence (Lord & Brown, 2001; Lord et al., 1999). Researchers put forward identity as a mediator that links exogenous processes such as leadership with internal subordinate processes, which, in turn, influence subordinate behavior (Lord & Brown, p. 134). SIT researchers such as Hogg and van Knippenberg (2003) imply that leader behaviors are able to influence follower social identity, thus affecting follower attitudes and behaviors. They suggest that followers are more likely to follow leaders who best represent the group as a whole (i.e., the prototypical group member). Furthermore, social identification with the organization is found to result in the same positive organizational behaviors that are typically seen as outcomes, such as increased OCB, of effective leadership (e.g., Christ et al., 2003; Haslam, 2004; van Knippenberg, 2000). Both SIT and social cognitive theorists (Lord & Brown, 2001) believe that leadership effectiveness increases when leaders are able to build subordinate identification with the organization. Thus, van Knippenberg et al. (2004) proposed a need for research that explores identity as a mediator in the leader–follower relationship.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Transformational leadership is the ability to motivate and encourage intellectual stimulation through inspiration (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). According to Bass and Avolio (1997), transformational leaders appeal to higher ideals and values that inspire followers to go beyond expectations (Burns, 1978). Transactional leaders, on the other hand, lead by exchange; the resources of the leader are exchanged for effort, assistance, and successful performance of employees (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Rafferty and Griffin (2004) view vision as the main characteristic of transformational leaders. Vision and inspiration activate a transformation process within the follower (Scandura & Williams, 2004). That is, a relationship or sense of identification with the leader develops which results in acceptance of the leader’s vision and values, and goal achievement becomes the norm (Gillespie & Mann, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire followers to exert effort beyond self-interest in favor of collective group accomplishment (Berson & Avolio, 2004). A large body of research on transformational leadership has documented its positive association with commitment (Avolio et al., 2004;


Jung & Sosik, 2002; McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2005). Like social identity, numerous empirical studies have found that transformational leadership is positively related to indicators of leadership effectiveness such as follower commitment, satisfaction, motivation, and extra effort across a number of settings (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 1995; Hinken & Tracey, 1994; Pillai & Williams, 2004; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Head nurses with high transformational leadership style, for example, were more likely to have followers with higher job satisfaction than transactional leaders (Medley & Larochelle, 1995). Pillai, Schriesheim, and Williams (1999) reported that transformational and transactional leadership were related to follower outcomes, as mediated by perceptions of fairness and trust in the leader. Similarly, Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) found that transformational leadership affected OCB, but the relationship was indirect, rather than direct. They found that the effect of transformational leadership on OCB, while positive, was mediated by followers’ trust in their leader (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The first study reported here includes group member satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to remain in the group in a volunteer service club.

STUDY 1: SERVICE CLUB MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF CLUB LEADERS While there is a burgeoning literature on the role of leadership in the traditional organization (Giffords, 2003), much less attention has been paid to the impact of leadership on organizational behavior in nontraditional organizations such as volunteer organizations, service clubs, and charities (Clary & Snyder, 1999). Volunteer organizations are faced with many problems typical of for-profit organizations such as turnover, commitment, and job satisfaction. Therefore, the vast literature on leadership should be extended to address similar issues faced by nonprofit organizations. To that end, it is an empirical question whether traditional leadership theories can be applied successfully to volunteer organizations. The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the role of leadership and concomitant members’ attitudes in voluntary service organizations such as Lions Club or Rotary Club International, Inc. It was hypothesized that organizational identity is a potential mechanism (as shown by mediation analysis) through which transformational leaders influence employees’ outcomes. We propose that the relationships between transformational leadership and followers’ perceptions will be mediated by organizational identity. The mediation model is shown in


Figure 13.1. Specifically, it was hypothesized that organizational identity would act as a mediator between club member perceptions of service club leaders’ transformational leadership style and club member ratings of their own satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to stay within the organization.

METHOD Participants Presidents and members of eight service clubs in a southeastern city were invited to complete an online or a paper survey. Club size ranged from as few as 20 members to approximately 200 members. The administrative framework of the service clubs under study was based on club leadership. Club presidents serve 1-year unpaid terms. They are expected to develop goals for the organization, maintain open lines of communication, involve all members in club activities, and arrange club meetings. A board of directors forms the clubs’ governing body and includes the president and other officers. A total of 110 surveys were completed (66 paper surveys were returned and 44 respondents completed the online survey). A 33% response rate for the paper surveys was attained by dividing the number of surveys returned by the number of surveys handed out at club meetings. As it was unknown how many club members who were present at the meetings had access to the Internet, calculating a response rate for the online sample was not meaningful. For all clubs, respondents included 25 females (22.7%) and 85 males (77.3%). Over half of the participants (58.2%) were between the ages of 46 to 65 years old. A sizeable minority of the sample (20%) was retired. Most of the sample (93%) were college educated (with a minimum of an undergraduate degree). Participants were predominantly European American (86%), with 10% reporting “other,” and 4% not reporting. The average number of years as a club member was 10.32 (SD = 9.63). The reported average number of hours spent on club activities in a 2-week period was 4.19 (SD = 2.64). Measures Transformational Leadership The short version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Leader Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997) was distributed to the leaders, whereas the short MLQ Rater Form (5X) was distributed to group members. Responses were measured by a 5-point scale, ranging from not at all = 0 to frequently, if not always = 4. For this study, reliability for this scale was α = .96.


Organizational Identity Mael and Ashforth’s six-item (1992) organizational identity scale (as cited in Haslam, 2004, p. 273) was used to measure club identification. An example item is “When I talk about this club, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they.’ ” Chronbach’s alpha coefficient for this study was equal to .77. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Commitment The short form nine-item version of Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) Organization Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) was used to measure commitment. The OCQ scale used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample commitment item is “I talk up this club to my friends as a great organization to belong to.” Satisfaction One item was adapted from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh’s (1983) satisfaction instrument (as cited in Fields, 2002). The item was “All in all, I am satisfied with my membership in this club.” The item was answered on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Intentions to Remain One item from Cook, Hepworth, Wall, and Warr’s (1981; as cited in Fields, 2002) scale measured intentions to remain within the organization. The question was “The likelihood of my continued membership in this club is high,” which was answered on a 7-point Likert format. Demographics Questions included the length of membership in the organization and in this particular club, gender, age, ethnicity, retirement status, and educational background. Procedure A researcher attended a club meeting at each of the eight clubs over the course of 3 months. At the club meetings, the club presidents announced the study, introduced the researcher, and invited members to participate. The researcher was allowed to describe the purpose of the research project and to distribute copies of the survey. Members of the club had the option of either completing the survey form distributed at the club meeting or completing an identical survey online. The survey was advertised on postcards and distributed at the club meetings; the survey link was also published on the club’s monthly bulletin or newsletter.


To retain anonymity, a drop box was placed at each clubhouse or participants could mail the completed surveys directly to the university in the provided prepaid envelopes. The electronic online survey was also anonymous; responses on the electronic database could not be matched to any particular respondent.

RESULTS Preliminary Analyses There were no differences in ANOVAs between the electronic and paper versions of the survey on the major outcome variables of the study (commitment, satisfaction, and intentions to stay), so the data for the two modes were combined for subsequent analyses. Similarly, there were no overall differences between the eight clubs for individual club members’ ratings of the four major outcome variables. Therefore, specific club means for these variables are not reported, and club membership was not used as a control variable in testing for mediation. In a multiple regression analysis, the four demographic variables of gender, retirement status, age, and education did not predict commitment, nor were these variables significantly related to satisfaction or intentions to stay in the club. Therefore, it was not necessary to control for the effects of these demographic variables in testing the mediation model. Individual-level differences or members’ perceptions of leadership styles were assumed to be the most valid measure of club leadership for testing the proposed mediation model. It would be beneficial to examine whether club members’ perceptions of leadership style were correlated with the club leaders’ self-ratings. That is, did club members rate leaders as they rated themselves? Club members rated their leaders slightly higher on transformational leadership than the leaders themselves (r = .25, p < .05). Mediation Model Testing A series of regression analyses was performed to test for organizational identity as a mediator of transformational leadership effects on commitment, satisfaction, and intentions to remain using the logic of Baron and Kenny (1986). Baron and Kenny proposed that in order to establish mediation using regression analyses, the following conditions must hold: (a) the predictor variable must significantly affect the mediator; (b) the predictor variable must affect the outcome variable; and (c) the mediator must affect the outcome variable when the predictor


variable is also entered into the regression equation (see Figure 13.1). If these conditions all hold, then for mediation to occur, the effect of the predictor must be significantly less when coupled with the mediator (in condition c) than when regressed on the outcome variable alone (in condition b). Perfect mediation occurs if the predictor variable no longer has an effect when the mediator is entered into the equation (Baron & Kenny, p. 1177). Condition a for mediation for all of the models was met; transformational leadership significantly affected organizational identity, Adj. R 2 = .04, F(1, 99) = 4.64, p < .05 with β = .36, p < .01, for transformational leadership. The remainder of the regression analyses testing for mediation are discussed here. Satisfaction As Table 13.1 shows, the relationship between satisfaction and leadership was reduced but not eliminated when identity was added to the equation (from β = .31 p < .01, to β = .20, p < .05); organizational identity was a partial mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction. For transformational leadership’s effect on satisfaction, Adj. R 2 = .09, F(1, 99) = 3.82, p < .01. When organizational identity was added to the equation, Adj. R 2 = .33, F(2, 98) = 25.71, p < .001, and ΔR 2 = .25, F(1, 98) = 37.06, p < .001. Commitment Organizational identity was not a mediator of commitment, as the relationship between transformational leadership and commitment by itself was not significant, F(1, 99) = 3.23, p = .08. As can be seen from Table 13.1, however, when organizational identity was added to the equation, the standardized beta weight for transformational leadership was reduced in a way that would be similar to that produced by mediation. When both transformational leadership and identity were in the equation, the Adj. R 2 = .31, F(2, 98) = 23.65, p < .001, and β was .056 for organizational identity, suggesting a strong relationship between identity and commitment. Intentions to Stay Organizational identity was a full mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and intentions to remain in the club (Table 13.1). When identity was added to the equation, the relationship between transformational leadership and intentions was no longer significant, reducing β = .22 (p < .05) to β = .15 (p = .12). For the relationship between transformational leadership and intentions, Adj. R 2 = .04, F(1, 99) = 5.17, p < .05. When organizational identity was added to the equation, the ΔR 2 = .12, F(1, 98) = 14.60, p < .001.

How Leaders Transform Followers • 279 Table 13.1 Study 1: Organizational Identity as Mediator of Relationship between Perceptions of Transformational Leadership and Attitudes of Service Club Members Unstandardized Coefficients B

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

β

t

p Value

Model: Satisfaction 1

2

(Constant) Transformational leadership (Constant) Transformational leadership Organizational identity

5.618 .325

.286 .100

.310

19.654 3.244

.000 .002

3.785 .212

.388 .088

.202

9.755 2.416

.000 .018

.362

.059

.510

6.087

.000

Model: Commitment 1

2


5.274 .311

.494 .173

.178

10.685 1.798

.000 .075

1.946 .106

.656 .149

.060

2.964 .712

.004 .478

.657

.101

.555

6.533

.000

.000 .025

Model: Intentions to Stay 1

2


5.983 .251

.315 .110

.223

18.988 2.274

4.594 .166

.468 .106

.147

9.807 1.562

.000 .122

.274

.072

.359

3.821

.000

DISCUSSION Study 1 In Study 1, organizational identity was a partial mediator of the relationship between perceptions of transformational leadership and satisfaction. It was a full mediator of the relationship with intentions


to stay. It was not a mediator of the relationship with commitment. The relationship between commitment and transformational leadership was not significant, although the trend was in the right direction. If the relationship between the leadership and commitment variable had been significant, organizational identity would appear to have mediated this relationship (Table 13.1). In Study 2, we examine a similar meditation model between transformational leadership and follower perceptions using two different samples in a completely different context: transformational leaders in grocery stores and fast-food restaurants. Study 2: Employee Perceptions of Fast-Food Restaurant and Grocery Store Managers The first aim of Study 2 was to examine whether transformational leadership, rather than transactional leadership, is associated with higher levels of group member satisfaction and OCB in two different types of service organizations. The second aim was to examine organizational identity as a potential mediator through which transformational leaders influence employee perceptions. As in Study 1, we hypothesized that organizational identity would act as a mediator between employee perceptions of manager transformational leadership style and ratings of their own satisfaction and organizational citizenship. Finally, we conducted an exploratory analysis to determine whether there were differential effects of a cognitive component (social categorization) of social identity as a mediator compared with an emotional component (affective commitment).

METHOD Participants The participants were 66 employees, 35 from 7 different branches of an Australian supermarket chain and 31 from 5 different restaurants in a fast-food chain. Of this number, 54 employees were work group members, and 12 were the store managers. Initially, 150 surveys were distributed to team members of 12 managers. The response rate was 44%. The employee profiles for the two types of organizations were similar. The mean age range of the supermarket employees was 29.3 years, while the fast-food employees were, on average, 26 years old. The mean number of years employed was 8.12 for the supermarket employees and 5.38 for the fast-food employees. There were 20 male and 15 female supermarket employees, and 15 male and 16 female fast-food employees


in the sample. For both types of organizations, participants had worked for their organization for approximately 6 years, and had worked for their leaders for an average of approximately 2.5 years. Seven supermarket store managers and five fast-food operators were identified as leaders of their particular organizations. Leadership data were matched to team member data for all 12 of these leaders. The age range of leaders who participated was 24–45 years, with a mean age of approximately 36 years. The 12 leaders were all males. Leaders had worked as store managers for a mean of approximately 7 years. All leaders had been in their current roles at least 6 months. Measures Transformational and Transactional Leadership The short version of the MLQ Leader Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997) was distributed to the leaders. The short version of the MLQ Rater Form (5X) was distributed to the group members. Responses were measured by a 5-point scale, ranging from not at all = 0 to frequently, if not always = 4. For this study, the Chronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the 20 transformational leadership questions was .95, while the internal reliability (α) for the 12 transactional leadership questions was .78. Follower Organizational Identity Based on previous work by Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams (1986; as cited in Haslam, 2004, p. 272), seven social identity questions were used (see Table 13.5). Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. When a PCA on the seven items was constrained to a single component, that component accounted for 52.6% of the variance. Questions were assumed to load on a factor if their factor loadings were greater than .40; six of the seven items did so. Except for the one negatively worded item with a factor loading of .33, factor loadings ranged from .69 to .84. However, as the Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .84 was acceptable, all of the items from the scale were retained, including the negative item. Group Member Satisfaction Four satisfaction questions were incorporated into the questionnaire: (1) I am satisfied with my fellow workers; (2) I am satisfied with my job; (3) I am satisfied with the leader of my group; and (4) I am satisfied with my work environment. They were supplemented by Kunin’s faces scale (1955), which has previously been found to be a reliable and valid measure of overall satisfaction. Chronbach’s alpha for the satisfaction scale in this study was .83.


Organizational Citizenship Behavior Nineteen self-reported OCB questions were incorporated into the survey, combining items developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Podsakoff, Ahearne, and McKenzie (1997). The questions included in the present study were intended to tap into four types of citizenship behavior identified by Organ (1988). The four types of OCB measured were (1) altruism—behaviors that have the effect of helping others with organizationally relevant tasks; (2) civic virtue—behaviors that indicate that the individual participates in, or is concerned about the life of the organization; (3) sportsmanship—willingness by the employee to tolerate less-thanideal circumstances without complaining; and (4) conscientiousness— behaviors that go beyond minimum role requirements in the areas of attendance, obeying rules, and so forth (Podsakoff et al., 1990). A 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, was used to measure OCB. The Chronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the 19 items used in this study was .79. Demographics Demographic questions included participant’s age, gender, employment status (i.e., full-time vs. part-time), and years worked for the organization and for the manager. Procedure The MLQ Leader Form was distributed to store managers or operators. At weekly store management team meetings, questionnaires were distributed to all management team members. Team meetings typically consisted of at least 10 department managers and assistant managers who, for the purpose of this study, were considered employees or followers of the store managers. The questionnaires distributed to followers consisted of the MLQ Rater Form, the follower social identity questionnaire, the group member satisfaction questionnaire, and the OCB questionnaire. A leader ID number at the top of each leader and follower questionnaire matched followers to their leaders. Questionnaires were completed in the participants’ own time and returned via postage-paid return envelopes.

RESULTS Preliminary Analyses As we are primarily interested in how perceived transformational leadership affects work group identity and employee attitudes, individual perceptions, including individual perceptions of store leadership, will


be used in subsequent analyses. We did, however, collect self-ratings of leaders’ transformational and transactional styles. There were no significant differences between self-ratings and follower ratings for either transformational or transactional styles. The leaders appeared to be rated more transformational by followers (M = 3.77 out of 4, SD = .72) than transactional (M = 3.06, SD = .43). A series of analyses of variance was conducted to examine whether there were overall organization-level (i.e., fast-food or grocery store) effects on the mediator and the primary outcome variables of the study: organizational identity, satisfaction, and OCB. No such differences were found; therefore, the data from organizations were combined without regard to organization type. Similarly, there were no gender or employment status (full-time vs. part-time) effects on any of the outcome or mediator variables; therefore, subsequent analyses will not include these variables as covariates. Transactional versus Transformational Leadership Multiple regression analyses were initially conducted to investigate the effects of transformational leadership on employee satisfaction and OCB, compared to transactional leadership (Table 13.2). When transformational and transactional leadership scores were entered simultaneously into regression equations for (a) satisfaction, (b) OCB, and (c) organizational identity, all three regressions were significant: (a) Adj. R2 = .41 for satisfaction, F(2, 51) = 5.88, p < .001; (b) Adj. R2 = .19 for OCB, F(2, 51) = 7.17, p < .01; and (c) Adj. R2 = .19, F(2, 51) = 7.04, p < .01. The correlation between transformational leadership and transactional leadership was not significant (r = .16, ns). Transactional leadership was not a significant predictor of any of the three outcomes. As predicted, transformational leadership significantly predicted responses on all three measures (Table 13.2). Mediation Analyses The mediation models for employee satisfaction and self-reported OCB were tested as in Study 1, using the logic of Baron and Kenny (1986). Baron and Kenny’s condition a (from the section “Mediation Model Testing”) for mediation for all of the models was met; transformational leadership significantly affected organizational identity, Adj. R 2 = .20, F(1, 52) = 14.22, p < .001 with β = .46, p < .001, for transformational leadership. The remainder of the regression analyses testing for mediation are discussed below. Satisfaction Baron and Kenny’s conditions a, b, and c all hold for the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction as

284 • Sherry K. Schneider, Winette M. George, Sean Carroll Table 13.2 Study 2: Transactional and Transformational Leadership Effects on Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Organizational Identity on Grocery Store and Fast-Food Employees Unstandardized Coefficients B

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

β

t

p Value

Model: Satisfaction (Constant) Transformational leadership Transactional leadership

1.906 .665

.618 .108

.665

3.086 6.135

.003 .000

−.087

.181

−.052

−.482

.632

Model: OCB (Constant) Transformational leadership Transactional leadership

2.357 .291

.439 .077

.479

5.364 3.778

.000 .000

−.138

.129

−.136

−1.070

.289

Model: Organizational Identity (Constant) Transformational leadership Transactional leadership

2.638 .347

.552 .097

.455

4.781 3.580

.000 .001

.051

.162

.040

.316

.753

mediated by organizational identity. For condition a, transformational leadership significantly affected organizational identity. Table 13.3 shows conditions b and c also hold for this data. Adj. R 2 = .39 for transformational leadership’s effect on satisfaction was significant, F(1, 52) = 34.98, p < .001. The Adj. R 2 = .54 with organizational identity added to the equation was also significant, F(2, 51) = 32.98, p

Social Cognition, Social Identity, and Intergroup Relations: A Festschrift in Honor of Marilynn B. Brewer

Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture

Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture

Social networks and intergroup conflict

Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction (Rutgers Series on Self and Social Identity, Volume 3)